Politicians are always looking for ways to improve their chances of winning the next and future elections. Not all of the methods conjured up by some politicians are ethical, legal or constitutional. That is especially the case with today’s Democrats.
So, what are some of these creative ways that Democrats have been using or are pushing to increase their chances of election victories?
In some states, Democrats have or are trying to pass laws that return the right to vote to convicted felons. When someone is convicted of a felony, they lose a number of rights, such as voting, owning or possessing a firearm, unable to hold public office or obtain many professional licensing or working in certain fields. It needs to be noted that when Democrats work to restore voting rights to convicted felons, that they are NOT restoring any of their other lost rights.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke wants to give all non-citizens the right to vote, something the Constitution reserves JUST for American citizens. In states like California and Oregon, they already passed laws that automatically register to vote anyone who obtains or renews a valid state driver’s license. That means that any of the 3 million illegal aliens residing in California, a sanctuary state, who obtain a driver’s license just have to show up and vote if they want. In other states like Texas and Pennsylvania, at least 900,000 illegal aliens voted in the 2018 elections, according to Judicial Watch.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested lowering the legal age to vote, down to 16 at the same time she supports raising the minimum age for purchasing a firearm to 21. Pelosi’s reason is simple – the American public-school system has become a factory that has been busily producing millions of brainwashed socialists.
Democrats also want to abolish the Electoral College system since both Donald Trump and George W. Bush, both Republicans, lost the popular vote but won the White House due to the Electoral College.
The latest scheme being touted by some Democrats is to expand the number of justices serving on the Supreme Court. I heard one Democrat say it was to offset the fact that Trump is busy trying to stack the deck against them by appointing as many lower court judges as possible. Oh really? Let’s see, Barack Obama appointed over 300 lower court judges, stacking the deck in favor of the Democrats and some of those activist judges are the ones who think they are more powerful than the President of the United States as they rule on their anti-American agenda instead of ruling on the Constitution and Law.
You may be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court has not always consisted of 9 judges:
“The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.”
So, what would happen if Democrats succeeded in adding more judges to the nation’s highest court? Trump could appoint more, younger conservative judges to further tip the court to the conservative side. I don’t see how that would really benefit the Democrats, but no one has ever accused them of being smart or logical.
The next idea being bantered around is term limits for Supreme Court justices. Last September, I wrote about how establishing term limits for the Supreme Court justices would hurt Democrats, since the two oldest members of the court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer both in their 80s are two of the four liberals on the court. Gee, wouldn’t it be great to see them gone?
But how do voters feel about setting term limits for the Supreme Court Justices? Rasmussen Reports asked likely voters about the total number of justices and if they should be subject to term limits. Here is what they found out:
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 27% of Likely U.S. Voters favor increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Fifty-one percent (51%) are opposed, but 22% are undecided.”
“However, 54% believe the high court justices should be subject to term limits. Thirty percent (30%) disagree, while 16% are not sure…”
“Democrats (60%) are stronger advocates of term limits for the Supreme Court than Republicans (52%) and unaffiliated voters (50%) are. But even among Democrats, just 41% favor growing the size of the court, although that compares to only 19% of GOP voters and 20% of unaffiliateds.”
“Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of the job President Trump is doing, 62% favor terms limits for Supreme Court justices, but only 37% want to put more members on the high court.”
Here is the thing about increasing the number of justices or placing them on term limits – right now it favors Republicans, but if a Democrat gets elected to the White House, the high court could easily be tipped the other way in favor of Democrats.
What needs to happen is for the President and Senate to enforce the US Constitution, which does NOT state that they are to serve for life or until retirement. What the Constitution says is this:
“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” [emphasis mine]
Instead of increasing the number of Supreme Court justices or using term limits for Supreme Court Justices, all the President and Senate have to do is apply the Constitution. When any federal judge, liberal or conservative, issues rulings based more on their personal or political agendas, they are no longer acting in good behavior. According to the Constitution, when they are not acting in good behavior, then they have lost their right to serve as a federal judge and therefore should be removed from the bench.