Democrat Leaders Warn SCOTUS

[Kathianne]

This is truly bizarre. Even stranger, seems to me that NYT and WaPo are hoping something changes, I cannot find 1 story from any MSM.

https://ijr.com/senate-democrats-supreme-court-heal-or-restructured/



Senate Dems Issue Ominous Warning to SCOTUS: ‘Heal’ or Be ‘Restructured’


Houston Keene
August 13, 2019, 4:15 pm

Several Democrats in the Senate delivered an ominous warning to the Supreme Court in a case brief regarding a gun law in New York City.


In a case brief filed on Monday, five Senate Democrats — Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — wrote that the Supreme Court was “not well” and needed to be “heal[ed]” before “the public” demands the institution be “restructured.”


The group of senators also brought up rulings by the court, where there is a 5-4 conservative majority.


“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”


The senators quoted a Quinnipiac poll in May that found 55 percent of Americans thought that the Supreme Court was mainly motivated by politics. The same poll found 51 percent of Americans were in favor of restructuring the Supreme Court.


The case the briefing accompanied was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York and dealt with the legal limitations on where unloaded, locked, and licensed firearms can be taken by gun owners.


An overhaul of the Supreme Court has taken its place among the policy proposals for many of the prominent Democratic presidential primary candidates.


As IJR Red previously reported, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-Ind.) proposed that he wanted as many as 15 justices on the bench and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) gave his support to an 18-year term limit proposal.


Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said that she was “absolutely open” to a dialogue on packing the court. She was joined on this idea by Gillibrand as well as Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.


The idea of packing the court did not strike a chord with current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who trashed it as a “bad idea” and that she was “not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation” during an interview with NPR.


Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — the self-described “Grim Reaper” of progressive policies in the upper chamber — blasted the talk of packing the courts as being from “out of the ash heap of history.”



This has been rumbling around for a few months, but this is outright intimidation. RBG warned them:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/watch-democrats-completely-ignore-rbgs-warning-court-packing/

Watch For Democrats To Completely Ignore RBG’s Warning Against Court Packing
Ginsburg’s advice against such schemes was sound, but her liberal fans will stop at nothing should they get the chance to change the Supreme Court.


By Jonathan S. Tobin


AUGUST 6, 2019


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a rock star to liberals, who regard her as the living embodiment of feminist empowerment and a commitment to using the courts to rewrite the Constitution to accommodate their big-government agenda. But although they lionize her in hagiographic feature films and made her a popular meme as the #notoriousRBG, it’s not likely many will follow her advice about one of the most popular proposals both Democratic grassroots activists and the party’s presidential candidates are circulating: court packing.


In an interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg that centered mostly on Ginsburg looking back on her career as well as her battles with cancer, the justice made it clear she took a dim view of Democratic plans to alter the federal judiciary should they reclaim control of the White House and the Senate in 2020.




Ginsburg pointed out that most of the “reforms” proposed by the likes of South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and endorsed by other leading Democrats are both impractical and highly unlikely to be adopted no matter which party is in charge in 2021. These reforms include putting term limits on the tenure of Supreme Court and federal appellate judges, as well as changing the manner in which they are selected.


Pushing for Partisanship
Although Buttigieg and rivals such as Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Beto O’Rourke who have endorsed such schemes claim they want to make the courts less partisan, Ginsburg sees right through such pretensions. While pointing out that changing the manner in which justices are nominated and confirmed and altering their lifetime tenure will never fly because it would require a constitutional amendment, she also made it clear that changing the way the courts have operated since 1789 would be seen as making them more partisan rather than less so.


Nevertheless, she conceded that the number of Supreme Court justices could be altered, since the Constitution does not state a specific number. The number varied in the republic’s first decades. The passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number at nine, but another act of Congress could change that.


That’s exactly what President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to do in 1937 with his infamous court-packing proposal, the purpose of which was to stop conservatives on the Supreme Court from ruling some of his New Deal legislation unconstitutional. Although FDR’s Democratic Party had overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, the public outcry against his brazen attempt to politicize the judiciary caused enough Democrats to abandon him, thwarting his plan.




Given the current conservative majority on the court — and the chance President Donald Trump and the Republican majority in the Senate could add to it should there be a vacancy in the next 16 months — many Democrats have vowed that if they get the power to do so, they won’t wait for one of the five conservative justices to die or retire but will negate their votes by adding enough new seats on the bench.


Court Packing Has Always Been a Bad Idea
But while Ginsburg is unhappy about many of the decisions of her conservative colleagues, she takes a dim view of any notions about court packing: “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”


Ginsburg believes the Supreme Court is still essentially a nonpartisan institution, where 5-4 votes are the exception rather than the rule and all of its members cooperate and work well together. Moreover, she thinks any attempt to circumvent normal procedure to render the current 5-4 conservative majority obsolete would undermine the independence of the judiciary and harm its ability to operate.


These observations coming from someone so venerated on the left ought to constrain the enthusiasm of Democrats for court-packing schemes. But Ginsburg, whose anti-Trump credentials were burnished by her critical comments about the president during the 2016 presidential election (which she subsequently conceded were inappropriate), shouldn’t be under the delusion that Democrats are listening to her.


The Cold Logic of Judicial Politics


While the nine justices on the high court may think they are above politics or may vote, as Chief Justice John Roberts has, in a manner they think will keep the judiciary out of the partisan fray, most Republicans and Democrats have a firmer grasp on political reality.


Most observers on both sides of the political aisle see the court as having become an essentially partisan institution that acts as a superlegislature in an era in which gridlock and the growth of the administrative state have sidelined the legislative branch. Control of the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts is not so much an option as a prerequisite for any chance at political power.


Although Roberts’ diffidence about enforcing constitutional norms is rooted in his desire to preserve the illusion that the courts operate outside the partisan scrum, the days when confirmations will be about legal qualifications rather than party loyalties are long gone. If, as I wrote here, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has become the conservative movement’s most valuable asset in Washington outside of the White House, it is because he understands the cold logic of judicial politics in the 21st century.


McConnell’s decision to deny Judge Merrick Garland the courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote in 2016 after President Barack Obama nominated him to take the chair of Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, was not a case of a “stolen” seat, nor illegal. But it was unprecedented and based on the calculation that in this day and age, allowing a president to flip a Supreme Court seat from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other was political malpractice.




The same applies to McConnell ending the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominees and the end of the “blue slip” rule that allowed senators a veto over judicial nominees from their state. On the filibuster, McConnell was merely following in the footsteps of Harry Reid, his Democratic predecessor, who ended the filibuster on lower-court nominations.


The Stakes Are High
Both parties now understand that the stakes involved in control of the judiciary are just too high to play by the gentlemanly rules of a bygone era. If Republicans now understand that defense of constitutional norms and any restraint on liberals’ ability to impose their ideological agenda rests on preserving a conservative high court majority, Democrats have come to similar conclusions.


Democratic presidential candidates are talking about court packing, and not just because it’s the red meat for liberal activists who are bitter about Garland’s defeat and the ability of the GOP to confirm Neil Gorsuch and especially Brett Kavanaugh in the last two years. It’s also because they know their plans for a vast expansion of entitlements and executive power to implement schemes such as “Medicare for All” or a Green New Deal are predicated on their control of the courts.


In this sense, Ginsburg’s advice against court packing isn’t just a throwback to notions of political civility and respect for the rules. It’s also a refusal to let partisan control of the courts determine the nation’s political and legal future.

That’s a lesson Trump, McConnell, and the GOP have already learned. Should leftists win big next year, anyone who thinks the weight of Ginsburg’s opinion or the pull of tradition will restrain Democrats from doing whatever they can to pack the courts hasn’t been paying attention to the political facts of life in 2019.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributing writer for National Review. Follow him on Twitter.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is truly bizarre. Even stranger, seems to me that NYT and WaPo are hoping something changes, I cannot find 1 story from any MSM.

https://ijr.com/senate-democrats-supreme-court-heal-or-restructured/




This has been rumbling around for a few months, but this is outright intimidation. RBG warned them:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/watch-democrats-completely-ignore-rbgs-warning-court-packing/

Watch For Democrats To Completely Ignore RBG’s Warning Against Court Packing
Ginsburg’s advice against such schemes was sound, but her liberal fans will stop at nothing should they get the chance to change the Supreme Court.


By Jonathan S. Tobin


AUGUST 6, 2019


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a rock star to liberals, who regard her as the living embodiment of feminist empowerment and a commitment to using the courts to rewrite the Constitution to accommodate their big-government agenda. But although they lionize her in hagiographic feature films and made her a popular meme as the #notoriousRBG, it’s not likely many will follow her advice about one of the most popular proposals both Democratic grassroots activists and the party’s presidential candidates are circulating: court packing.


In an interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg that centered mostly on Ginsburg looking back on her career as well as her battles with cancer, the justice made it clear she took a dim view of Democratic plans to alter the federal judiciary should they reclaim control of the White House and the Senate in 2020.




Ginsburg pointed out that most of the “reforms” proposed by the likes of South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and endorsed by other leading Democrats are both impractical and highly unlikely to be adopted no matter which party is in charge in 2021. These reforms include putting term limits on the tenure of Supreme Court and federal appellate judges, as well as changing the manner in which they are selected.


Pushing for Partisanship
Although Buttigieg and rivals such as Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Beto O’Rourke who have endorsed such schemes claim they want to make the courts less partisan, Ginsburg sees right through such pretensions. While pointing out that changing the manner in which justices are nominated and confirmed and altering their lifetime tenure will never fly because it would require a constitutional amendment, she also made it clear that changing the way the courts have operated since 1789 would be seen as making them more partisan rather than less so.


Nevertheless, she conceded that the number of Supreme Court justices could be altered, since the Constitution does not state a specific number. The number varied in the republic’s first decades. The passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number at nine, but another act of Congress could change that.


That’s exactly what President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to do in 1937 with his infamous court-packing proposal, the purpose of which was to stop conservatives on the Supreme Court from ruling some of his New Deal legislation unconstitutional. Although FDR’s Democratic Party had overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, the public outcry against his brazen attempt to politicize the judiciary caused enough Democrats to abandon him, thwarting his plan.




Given the current conservative majority on the court — and the chance President Donald Trump and the Republican majority in the Senate could add to it should there be a vacancy in the next 16 months — many Democrats have vowed that if they get the power to do so, they won’t wait for one of the five conservative justices to die or retire but will negate their votes by adding enough new seats on the bench.


Court Packing Has Always Been a Bad Idea
But while Ginsburg is unhappy about many of the decisions of her conservative colleagues, she takes a dim view of any notions about court packing: “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”


Ginsburg believes the Supreme Court is still essentially a nonpartisan institution, where 5-4 votes are the exception rather than the rule and all of its members cooperate and work well together. Moreover, she thinks any attempt to circumvent normal procedure to render the current 5-4 conservative majority obsolete would undermine the independence of the judiciary and harm its ability to operate.


These observations coming from someone so venerated on the left ought to constrain the enthusiasm of Democrats for court-packing schemes. But Ginsburg, whose anti-Trump credentials were burnished by her critical comments about the president during the 2016 presidential election (which she subsequently conceded were inappropriate), shouldn’t be under the delusion that Democrats are listening to her.


The Cold Logic of Judicial Politics


While the nine justices on the high court may think they are above politics or may vote, as Chief Justice John Roberts has, in a manner they think will keep the judiciary out of the partisan fray, most Republicans and Democrats have a firmer grasp on political reality.


Most observers on both sides of the political aisle see the court as having become an essentially partisan institution that acts as a superlegislature in an era in which gridlock and the growth of the administrative state have sidelined the legislative branch. Control of the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts is not so much an option as a prerequisite for any chance at political power.


Although Roberts’ diffidence about enforcing constitutional norms is rooted in his desire to preserve the illusion that the courts operate outside the partisan scrum, the days when confirmations will be about legal qualifications rather than party loyalties are long gone. If, as I wrote here, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has become the conservative movement’s most valuable asset in Washington outside of the White House, it is because he understands the cold logic of judicial politics in the 21st century.


McConnell’s decision to deny Judge Merrick Garland the courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote in 2016 after President Barack Obama nominated him to take the chair of Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, was not a case of a “stolen” seat, nor illegal. But it was unprecedented and based on the calculation that in this day and age, allowing a president to flip a Supreme Court seat from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other was political malpractice.




The same applies to McConnell ending the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominees and the end of the “blue slip” rule that allowed senators a veto over judicial nominees from their state. On the filibuster, McConnell was merely following in the footsteps of Harry Reid, his Democratic predecessor, who ended the filibuster on lower-court nominations.


The Stakes Are High
Both parties now understand that the stakes involved in control of the judiciary are just too high to play by the gentlemanly rules of a bygone era. If Republicans now understand that defense of constitutional norms and any restraint on liberals’ ability to impose their ideological agenda rests on preserving a conservative high court majority, Democrats have come to similar conclusions.


Democratic presidential candidates are talking about court packing, and not just because it’s the red meat for liberal activists who are bitter about Garland’s defeat and the ability of the GOP to confirm Neil Gorsuch and especially Brett Kavanaugh in the last two years. It’s also because they know their plans for a vast expansion of entitlements and executive power to implement schemes such as “Medicare for All” or a Green New Deal are predicated on their control of the courts.


In this sense, Ginsburg’s advice against court packing isn’t just a throwback to notions of political civility and respect for the rules. It’s also a refusal to let partisan control of the courts determine the nation’s political and legal future.

That’s a lesson Trump, McConnell, and the GOP have already learned. Should leftists win big next year, anyone who thinks the weight of Ginsburg’s opinion or the pull of tradition will restrain Democrats from doing whatever they can to pack the courts hasn’t been paying attention to the political facts of life in 2019.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributing writer for National Review. Follow him on Twitter.

Dem party showing its true colors. As it stands against this nation as it was founded, against the Constitution and now openly declaring it wants to turn the judicial branch into its subservient slave. We have three branches of government 1. Executive, 2. Legislative and 3. Judicial....
Dem party wants government to be one branch--one branch totally subservient to the dem party and its socialist/dictatorial agenda-- a sad, tragic and very dangerous reality, yes-- it is just that simple..

I am dead on the mark--when I declare the dem party to be a great danger to this nation-- when I openly, boldly and so truthfully, declare that it engages in treason on a daily basis. as did its beloved messiah-- the obama-- who did so and got away with it--setting the standard..
Truth that so many hate, deny and want to be shut up... A very sad and a most tragic fact....
What is going on now-- is not politics as usual-- it hasnt been that for a long time.. --Tyr

Edit-- by the way- it is not -- "warns "-- it is openly , brazenly and boldly dem party ""threatens"" SCOTUS.. lets be precise ON THAT...
Those making that threat should be brought up on charges-, IMHO....
Of course totally disregarding their sworn oath of office is now and has long been par for course from dems.. Another sad fact.. -Tyr

[CSM]

Dem party showing its true colors. As it stands against this nation as it was founded, against the Constitution and now openly declaring it wants to turn the judicial branch into its subservient slave. We have three branches of government 1. Executive, 2. Legislative and 3. Judicial....
Dem party wants government to be one branch--one branch totally subservient to the dem party and its socialist/dictatorial agenda-- a sad, tragic and very dangerous reality, yes-- it is just that simple..

I am dead on the mark--when I declare the dem party to be a great danger to this nation-- when I openly, boldly and so truthfully, declare that it engages in treason on a daily basis. as did its beloved messiah-- the obama-- who did so and got away with it--setting the standard..
Truth that so many hate, deny and want to be shut up... A very sad and a most tragic fact....
What is going on now-- is not politics as usual-- it hasnt been that for a long time.. --Tyr

Edit-- by the way- it is not -- "warns "-- it is openly , brazenly and boldly dem party ""threatens"" SCOTUS.. lets be precise ON THAT...
Those making that threat should be brought up on charges-, IMHO....
Of course totally disregarding their sworn oath of office is now and has long been par for course from dems.. Another sad fact.. -Tyr

I find it interesting (among a host of other points in this) that they want to enact term limitations for SCJs. To even suggest term limits for Congressional seats is tantamount to treason for these people. Yes, I am well aware that the States have a say but such considerations have not stopped the progressives in the past.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I find it interesting (among a host of other points in this) that they want to enact term limitations for SCJs. To even suggest term limits for Congressional seats is tantamount to treason for these people. Yes, I am well aware that the States have a say but such considerations have not stopped the progressives in the past.

Another strong point well said-- well made.
How any decent person can side with such hypocritical, corrupted, worthless, lying vermin astounds me...--Tyr

[CSM]

Another strong point well said-- well made.
How any decent person can side with such hypocritical, corrupted, worthless, lying vermin astounds me...--Tyr

It's called "integrity". The one basic characteristic that politicians either dismiss entirely upon election or never had in the first place.

[STTAB]

It's called "integrity". The one basic characteristic that politicians either dismiss entirely upon election or never had in the first place.

Related to the point I made a few weeks ago, isn't it interesting that of the three branches, the legislative branch is the ONLY branch that doesn't have some mechanism whereby one of the other branches can remove its members from office?

[CSM]

Related to the point I made a few weeks ago, isn't it interesting that of the three branches, the legislative branch is the ONLY branch that doesn't have some mechanism whereby one of the other branches can remove its members from office?

The one branch that is truly "for the people, by the people" some would say

[STTAB]

The one branch that is truly "for the people, by the people" some would say

Well, given that by and large "the people" are dishonest morons, that is true.

Congress truly is reflective of the will of the people. Sadly

[CSM]

Well, given that by and large "the people" are dishonest morons, that is true.

Congress truly is reflective of the will of the people. Sadly

LOL.... agreed. Politicians spout "the will of the people" as they do whatever they can to retain power. "The will of the people" only matters to them as it impacts their retention of power.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Here we go... once again... the democrats don't like the outcome of something, it's time to either SHUT THEM UP or SHUT THEM DOWN. I swear go God, these democrat worms are the most disgusting bunch of human trash I've ever seen. They've gone completely past just being an opposition party, now they're the ENEMY WITHIN. They are like NAZIS, and no, I'm NOT KIDDING. This is the way HITLER and the Nazis operated. I'm just absolutely appalled at their behavior. It's about as blatantly anti American as you'd ever want to see, and I'm not talking about JUST this latest THREAT on the SC either. I mean with everything. There has to be a reckoning coming. These people need to be reminded how our constitutional republic works, and if that takes another civil war, then count me in.

[Kathianne]

The one branch that is truly "for the people, by the people" some would say

I believe that was the idea, the people could remove. I'd start with Federalist 10 and 51, Madison.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I believe that was the idea, the people could remove. I'd start with Federalist 10 and 51, Madison.



*****************

The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment. The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

*****************
The House of Representatives impeached Chase on eight articles of impeachment, all centering on Chases's alleged political bias. The Senate voted to acquit Chase on all counts, and Chase served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811.

*****************



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

Samuel Chase
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
This article is about the Supreme Court justice. For the U.S. Congressman, see Samuel Chase (congressman). For the American tennis player, see Samuel T. Chase.
Samuel Chase
Samuel Chase.jpg
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
In office
January 27, 1796 – June 19, 1811
Nominated by George Washington
Preceded by John Blair
Succeeded by Gabriel Duvall
Personal details
Born April 17, 1741
Somerset County, Maryland, British America
Died June 19, 1811 (aged 70)
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.
Political party Federalist
Spouse(s) Ann Baldwin
Hannah Kilty
Signature
Nickname(s) Old Bacon Face, the Demosthenes of Maryland [1]
Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741 – June 19, 1811) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was impeached by the House on grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions but was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office.

Born near Princess Anne, Maryland, Chase established a legal practice in Annapolis, Maryland. He served in the Maryland General Assembly for several years and favored independence during the American Revolution. He won election to the Continental Congress before serving on the Baltimore District Criminal Court and the Maryland General Court. In 1796, President George Washington appointed Chase to the United States Supreme Court.

After the 1800 elections, President Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans sought to weaken Federalist influence on the federal courts. Chase's actions on the court had been accused of demonstrating bias, and Jefferson believed that Chase should be removed from office. The House of Representatives impeached Chase on eight articles of impeachment, all centering on Chases's alleged political bias. The Senate voted to acquit Chase on all counts, and Chase served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811. Some historians have argued that Chase's acquittal set an important precedent regarding the independence of the federal judiciary.


Contents
1 Youth and early career
2 Family and personal life
3 Career in Annapolis
3.1 Continental Congress
4 Judicial career
4.1 Impeachment
5 Death
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
Youth and early career
Samuel Chase was the only child of the Reverend Thomas Chase (c. 1703–1779) and his wife, Matilda Walker (? – by 1744), born near Princess Anne, Maryland.[2]

His father was a clergyman who immigrated to Somerset County to become a priest in a new church. Samuel was educated at home. He was eighteen when he left for Annapolis where he studied law under attorney John Hall.[2] He was admitted to the bar in 1761[3] and started a law practice in Annapolis. It was during his time as a member of the bar that his colleagues gave him the nickname of "Old Bacon Face."[4]

Family and personal life
In May 1762, Chase married Ann Baldwin, daughter of Thomas and Agnes Baldwin. Samuel and Ann had three sons and four daughters, with only four surviving to adulthood.[2] Ann died in 1776.

In 1784, Chase traveled to England to deal with Maryland's Bank of England stock, where he met Hannah Kilty, daughter of Samuel Giles, a Berkshire physician. They were married later that year and had two daughters, Hannah and Elisa.[2][5]

Career in Annapolis
In 1762, Chase was expelled from the Forensic Club, an Annapolis debating society, for "extremely irregular and indecent" behavior.[2]

In 1764, Chase was elected to the Maryland General Assembly where he served for 20 years.[3]

In 1766, he became embroiled in a war of words with a number of loyalist members of the Maryland political establishment. In an open letter dated July 18, 1766, Chase attacked Walter Dulany, George Steuart (1700–1784), John Brice (1705–1766), and others for publishing an article in the Maryland Gazette Extraordinary of June 19, 1766, in which Chase was accused of being: "a busy, reckless incendiary, a ringleader of mobs, a foul-mouthed and inflaming son of discord and faction, a common disturber of the public tranquility". In his response, Chase accused Steuart and the others of "vanity...pride and arrogance", and of being brought to power by "proprietary influence, court favour, and the wealth and influence of the tools and favourites who infest this city." [6]

In 1769, he started construction of the mansion that would become known as the Chase–Lloyd House, which he sold unfinished in 1771. The house is now a National Historic Landmark.

He co-founded Anne Arundel County's Sons of Liberty chapter with his close friend William Paca, as well as leading opposition to the 1765 Stamp Act.[2]

Continental Congress
From 1774 to 1776, Chase was a member of the Annapolis Convention. He represented Maryland at the Continental Congress, was re-elected in 1776 and signed the United States Declaration of Independence.[3]

He remained in the Continental Congress until 1778. The involvement of Chase in an attempt to corner the flour market, using insider information gained through his position in the Congress, resulted in his not being returned to the Continental Congress and damaging his reputation.

Judicial career
In 1786, Chase moved to Baltimore, which remained his home for the rest of his life. In 1788, he was appointed chief justice of the District Criminal Court in Baltimore and served until 1796. In 1791, he became Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court, again serving until 1796.[3]

On January 26, 1796, President George Washington appointed Chase as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Chase served on the court until his death on June 19, 1811.[3]

Impeachment

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Samuel Chase" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
President Thomas Jefferson, alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through the claim of exclusive judicial review, led his party's efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench. His allies in Congress had, shortly after his inauguration, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments; Chase, two years after the repeal in May 1803, had denounced it in his charge to a Baltimore grand jury, saying that it would "take away all security for property and personal liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy."[7] Earlier in April 1800, Chase acting as a district judge, had made strong attacks upon Thomas Cooper, who had been indicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts; Chase had taken the air of a prosecutor rather than a judge.[8] Also in 1800, when a grand jury in New Castle, Delaware declined to indict a local printer, Chase refused to discharge them, saying he was aware of one specific printer that he wished them to indict for seditious behavior.[9] Jefferson saw the attack as indubitable bad behavior and an opportunity to reduce the Federalist influence on the judiciary by impeaching Chase, launching the process from the White House when he wrote to Congressman Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland, asking: "Ought the seditious and official attack [by Chase] on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?"[10]

Virginia Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke took up the challenge and took charge of the impeachment. The House of Representatives served Chase with eight articles of impeachment in late 1803, one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. One article covered Chase's conduct with the New Castle grand jury, charging that he "did descend from the dignity of a judge and stoop to the level of an informer by refusing to discharge the grand jury, although entreated by several of the said jury so to do." Three articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed at his "intemperate and inflammatory … peculiarly indecent and unbecoming … highly unwarrantable … highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. On March 12, 1804, the House voted 73 to 32 to impeach Chase. [11] The United States Senate—controlled by the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans—began the impeachment trial of Chase on February 9, 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding and Randolph leading the prosecution.

All the counts involved Chase's work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. (In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century.) The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase's defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. There were 34 Senators present (25 Republicans and 9 Federalists), and 23 votes were needed to reach the required two-thirds majority for conviction/removal from office. Of the eight votes cast, the closest vote was 18 for conviction/removal from office and 16 for acquittal in regards to the Baltimore grand jury charge.[12] He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.[3] Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey recorded in the Virginia Law Register an account of the impeachment trial and acquittal of Chase.[13]

The impeachment raised constitutional questions over the nature of the judiciary and was the end of a series of efforts to define the appropriate extent of judicial independence under the Constitution. It set the limits of the impeachment power, fixed the concept that the judiciary was prohibited from engaging in partisan politics, defined the role of the judge in a criminal jury trial, and clarified judicial independence. The construction was largely attitudinal, as it modified political norms without codifying new legal doctrines.[14]

The acquittal of Chase—by lopsided margins on several counts—set an unofficial precedent that many historians say helped ensure the independence of the judiciary. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal. All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance. For their part, federal judges since that time have generally been much more cautious than Chase in trying to avoid the appearance of political partisanship.[15]

Death
Samuel Chase died of a heart attack in 1811. He was interred in what is now Baltimore's Old Saint Paul's Cemetery.[16][17]


************************************************** ************************************************** **
https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached

Samuel Chase Impeached
March 12, 1804
Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, an ardent Federalist supporter, was known for his open partisanship both on and off the bench. He campaigned vigorously for John Adams in the election of 1800, and in 1803, gave a grand jury charge in the U.S. circuit court in Maryland that was sharply critical of the Republicans for repealing the 1801 judiciary statute and abolishing the circuit judgeships that act had established. The grand jury charge proved highly controversial and led many to call for Chase’s removal from the bench. In March 1804, after debating what constituted proper grounds for impeachment, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase. The Maryland grand jury charge formed the basis for one of the eight articles of impeachment because of its allegedly seditious intent, while most of the others focused on allegedly improper behavior during politically charged trials such as the Sedition Act prosecutions. During his twenty-two day trial before the Senate, Chase argued that he could not be impeached for errors in judgment or improper behavior on the bench, but rather only for an indictable offense. On March 1, 1805, the Senate acquitted Chase when none of the eight articles of impeachment secured the votes of two-thirds of the members as was required for conviction. Chase’s impeachment helped to set the parameters of what kinds of conduct would warrant a judge’s removal from the bench. Although there had been one earlier judicial impeachment, involving John Pickering of New Hampshire, it was such a clear case of disability that it was not very useful as a precedent. Chase’s acquittal served as a tacit victory for his position that an indictable offense was required to meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for the impeachment and conviction of a federal judge. More than two centuries later, only eight federal judges have been removed by impeachment. In the twentieth century, Congress examined proposals for the removal of federal judges whose conduct did not rise to the level required for impeachment, but none was enacted, due in large part to doubts about the constitutionality of such a measure.

Timeline:
The Administration of the Federal Courts

Greatest and most easily seen or prove to exist --political bias--- rests with the liberal SCOTUS Justices, the pro-dem justices!
Now the dem party directed its threats not against them-- their faithful ALLIES- but made those threats against the justices that truly hold the Constitution as the guiding document and most important consideration in deliberating..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Tyr, we get what the Constitution says, what i was referring to is perhaps the thinking behind the differences how removal of legislators compared to judicial or executive.

While the idea of a strong legislature and slightly less strong executive has been turned into something very different since at least the Civil War, the Federalist Papers, along with letters, journals, and notes give us direction of what the framers considered.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, we get what the Constitution says, what i was referring to is perhaps the thinking behind the differences how removal of legislators compared to judicial or executive.

While the idea of a strong legislature and slightly less strong executive has been turned into something very different since at least the Civil War, the Federalist Papers, along with letters, journals, and notes give us direction of what the framers considered.
I see that , my take is the threat the dems made was that they would attack the Executive branch by stacking/tampering with-- the court-- same threat that FDR once made and was soundly chastised for.
I see your point and yes it is tied in to it all.
My point is history shows this same thing -involving Chase and later FDR when he made the threat-- neither time did the threat and the attempted action succeed.
And that was because the threat is fundamentally wrong and is an attack upon the nation as it was founded-- at least and especially so, both in the FDR AND THE CURRENT EXAMPLE, IMHO.
Should they be allowed to do this on the grounds that exist and the agenda they do this on--there will be no stopping them and it is/would very likely eventually cause the demise of this Representative Republic, IMHO..
Neither political party can be allowed to do this..... -Tyr

[Kathianne]

I see that , my take is the threat the dems made was that they would attack the Executive branch by stacking/tampering with-- the court-- same threat that FDR once made and was soundly chastised for.
I see your point and yes it is tied in to it all.
My point is history shows this same thing -involving Chase and later FDR when he made the threat-- neither time did the threat and the attempted action succeed.
And that was because the threat is fundamentally wrong and is an attack upon the nation as it was founded-- at least and especially so, both in the FDR AND THE CURRENT EXAMPLE, IMHO.
Should they be allowed to do this on the grounds that exist and the agenda they do this on--there will be no stopping them and it is/would very likely eventually cause the demise of this Representative Republic, IMHO..
Neither political party can be allowed to do this..... -Tyr
Which I tried to make clear in my comments on the two articles in OP. It also was the point of RBG comments around 2 months ago, when she strongly advised against such a move.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Which I tried to make clear in my comments on the two articles in OP. It also was the point of RBG comments around 2 months ago, when she strongly advised against such a move.

Yes and that was one of the few things RBG got right, IMHO.
My reply was not my expressing that you missed that- rather it was my expressing/stressing that very point to others that may read the reply.
In fact, I was already quite sure that you too saw that quite clearly and would agree with its correctness and valid judgment made with fact, reality and prudent considerations my friend... -Tyr

[STTAB]

Tyr, we get what the Constitution says, what i was referring to is perhaps the thinking behind the differences how removal of legislators compared to judicial or executive.

While the idea of a strong legislature and slightly less strong executive has been turned into something very different since at least the Civil War, the Federalist Papers, along with letters, journals, and notes give us direction of what the framers considered.

Perhaps true, but that's the wonderful thing about our Constitution, we aren't locked into what the founding fathers wanted. Of course, it's a difficult process , but that was their genius they allowed for amending the COTUS.

It's time for an Amendment that ends these lifetime Congress scum.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here is a more clear and far more wise assessment of what these filthy dem vermin have done with making this open and malicious threat against another branch of our government.--Tyr



https://www.yahoo.com/news/save-bad-gun-law-democratic-103003105.html



Politics
To Save a Bad Gun Law, Democratic Senators Threaten the Supreme Court
National Review David French,National Review 5 hours ago
Reactions Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

I just finished reading of the most astonishing legal briefs I’ve ever read. It is easily the most malicious Supreme Court brief I’ve ever seen. And it comes not from an angry or unhinged private citizen, but from five Democratic members of the United States Senate. Without any foundation, they directly attack the integrity of the five Republican appointees and conclude with a threat to take political action against the Court if it doesn’t rule the way they demand.

The brief is so outside legal norms that, had I drafted it as a member of the Supreme Court bar, I’d be concerned about facing legal sanction for recklessly impugning the integrity of the Court.

Here’s the background. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand filed their short brief in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York, the first Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has taken in nearly a decade.

If that sounds momentous, don’t be so sure. At issue is an extremely bizarre New York City law that banned the transport of a locked, unloaded licensed handgun outside the home unless the gun owner is traveling to one of only seven shooting ranges in the city. While the odds were remote that the Court would issue a sweeping Second Amendment ruling in a case involving a truly niche New York City law, it seemed likely that SCOTUS would strike down a regulation so strict that it prevented a person from taking his gun to a second home or even on a vacation to a jurisdiction that permitted him to arm himself.

And so — after fighting for its regulation through years of lower-court litigation — the city and state of New York changed their laws, slightly loosening the transport restrictions to allow a person to take their gun to a second home, a gun range, or a shooting competition outside the city. New York then filed a motion arguing that its legal changes rendered the petitioners’ claims moot. The New York Rifle and Pistol Association disagreed, arguing that even considering the city’s “miserly” changes, the city rules still violated the Second Amendment.

The ostensible purpose of the Democratic senators’ brief is to support the city’s claims that the case is moot and should be dismissed. Fair enough. Senators have the same rights as any other citizen to have their voice heard in the nation’s highest court, and mootness arguments are common when defendants change rules to evade judicial review.

The true intent of the brief, however, is to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Court itself. The senators ask the Court to dismiss the case to “stem the growing public belief that its decisions are ‘motivated mainly by politics.’” It then details how much money the NRA spent to support the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh (there’s no mention of the amount of money progressive groups have spent to support the confirmation of progressive judges), questions the sources of money funding amicus briefs opposing New York’s law, and then claims that if there were transparency, the petitioners’ “amicus army would likely be revealed as more akin to marionettes controlled by a puppetmaster than to a groundswell of support rallying to a cause.”

It gets worse. Read this remarkable paragraph:

From October Term 2005 through October Term 2017, this Court issued 78 5–4 (or 5–3) opinions in which justices appointed by Republican presidents provided all five votes in the majority. In 73 of these 5–4 decisions, the cases concerned interests important to the big funders, corporate influencers, and political base of the Republican Party. And in each of these 73 cases, those partisan interests prevailed.
Note that there is no concern expressed with lockstep voting by progressives. There is no acknowledgment that different justices have competing judicial philosophies. Nor is there any recognition that in hundreds of cases the philosophical divides are not so apparent, and that Democratic- and Republican-appointed justices vote together with striking frequency.

But the senators aren’t done. Not by a long shot:

With bare partisan majorities, the Court has influenced sensitive areas like voting rights, partisan gerrymandering, dark money, union power, regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights and discrimination in the workplace. Every single time, the corporate and Republican political interests prevailed. The pattern of outcomes is striking; and so is the frequency with which these 5–4 majorities disregarded “conservative” judicial principles like judicial restraint, originalism, stare decisis, and even federalism.
The implication is plain. The conservative justices are doing the bidding of their “corporate and Republican” masters. Their principles are malleable; only the results matter, and the results are dictated by the men and women who supported their confirmation and fund the litigation before the Court. “This backdrop,” the senators argue, “no doubt encourages petitioners’ brazen confidence that this Court will be a partner in their ‘project.’”

I’ve got a question for the senators. When progressive activist groups organize to support the confirmation of Democratic judicial nominees, are their efforts inherently suspect, and the justices they help confirm inherently tainted?

The brief ends with this ominous warning:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.
Translation: Nice nine-person Supreme Court you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

It’s hard to describe to non-lawyers how truly extraordinary this filing is. You can spend a lifetime reading Supreme Court briefs, and while you’ll certainly find passionate argument, the number of threats against the Court — much less threats buttressed by transparently obvious allegations of judicial corruption — will be extraordinarily rare. But don’t tell that to five powerful members of the world’s greatest deliberative body. They’ll resort to character assassination to save a progressive city from the constitutional reckoning it so richly deserves.

[Kathianne]

here is a more clear and far more wise assessment of what these filthy dem vermin have done with making this open and malicious threat against another branch of our government.--tyr


lol

[STTAB]

I don't know which would be sadder

That Democrats in the Senate don't realize that most Americans do not want the judicial system they want

or

that they know and are simply lying when they say "most Americans want........."

[Kathianne]

I don't know which would be sadder

That Democrats in the Senate don't realize that most Americans do not want the judicial system they want

or

that they know and are simply lying when they say "most Americans want........."

The 'people' want what they want or they are stupid non-progressives. That is their assumption.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

lol

Really? ok....

And also
By what magic did my name get changed to lower case spelling in your quote of my words?


Quote Originally Posted by tyr-ziu saxnot View Post
here is a more clear and far more wise assessment of what these filthy dem vermin have done with making this open and malicious threat against another branch of our government.--tyr


If my quote that you cited was funny- then- it would be nice if you could enlighten me exactly how so.
As it was fairly in line with the summation made at the closing of the article that I cited.--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Really? ok....

And also
By what magic did my name get changed to lower case spelling in your quote of my words?

I just quoted, I don't know why it went to lower case. You'll notice in the quote the blue icon to return to your original post is there. I don't screw around with names.





If my quote that you cited was funny- then- it would be nice if you could enlighten me exactly how so.
As it was fairly in line with the summation made at the closing of the article that I cited.--Tyr
I thought my source was perfectly acceptable. IF you felt yours added clarity, that would have been nice to add.

As has been said by more than one member, one tends to get what they give. Like yourself, I tend to stand up for myself.

[STTAB]

The 'people' want what they want or they are stupid non-progressives. That is their assumption.


You're more generous in your beliefs than I am LOL I think they are evil motherfuckers who don't care what the people want.

+

[STTAB]

I just quoted, I don't know why it went to lower case. You'll notice in the quote the blue icon to return to your original post is there. I don't screw around with names.
I thought my source was perfectly acceptable. IF you felt yours added clarity, that would have been nice to add.

As has been said by more than one member, one tends to get what they give. Like yourself, I tend to stand up for myself.

Liar, tell the truth, what was your evil purpose in posting his name in lower case letters LOL

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I just quoted, I don't know why it went to lower case. You'll notice in the quote the blue icon to return to your original post is there. I don't screw around with names.
I thought my source was perfectly acceptable. IF you felt yours added clarity, that would have been nice to add.

As has been said by more than one member, one tends to get what they give. Like yourself, I tend to stand up for myself.

I made my post to give additional information-- not in any way to refute or attack your cited source.
I have no clue why you just made the stand up for myself comment.
This is a clear case of a misunderstanding, perhaps on both our parts.
I've never thought of adding additional information as not helping clarity- that is if it is truthful/factual......
But perhaps I need to just leave this thread, and take a break....-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Here is a more clear and far more wise assessment of what these filthy dem vermin have done with making this open and malicious threat against another branch of our government.--Tyr


I made my post to give additional information-- not in any way to refute or attack your cited source.
I have no clue why you just made the stand up for myself comment.
This is a clear case of a misunderstanding, perhaps on both our parts.
I've never thought of adding additional information as not helping clarity- that is if it is truthful/factual......
But perhaps I need to just leave this thread, and take a break....-Tyr

I just highlighted in red what seemed to me to being strongly snarky.

Why assume I'm not being truthful/factual?

[STTAB]

Dear Tyr, disagreeing with you does not make a person vermin.

I post this knowing that you have me on ignore because you disagree with me politically LOL

[Gunny]

They're just letting us know what they are going to do once they regain power. It's coming, sooner or later. The right more than the left will be to blame for allowing it to happen for walking around with their heads in the clouds pretending tomorrow isn't going to get here.

I've asked on several occasions and never got so much as a response. What happens after Trump? 2024 WILL get here. Most who claim to be conservatives can't see past the latest MSM insult.

[Kathianne]

They're just letting us know what they are going to do once they regain power. It's coming, sooner or later. The right more than the left will be to blame for allowing it to happen for walking around with their heads in the clouds pretending tomorrow isn't going to get here.

I've asked on several occasions and never got so much as a response. What happens after Trump? 2024 WILL get here. Most who claim to be conservatives can't see past the latest MSM insult.

I've been asking about 'what about after Trump' since before he won the nomination. I'm pretty sure that Obama never thought his administration would lead to Trump, but it did.

Court packing would lead to more, once the Republicans regain control, which is as inevitable as the Democrats. Eventually it will be unwieldy.

[Gunny]

I've been asking about 'what about after Trump' since before he won the nomination. I'm pretty sure that Obama never thought his administration would lead to Trump, but it did.

Court packing would lead to more, once the Republicans regain control, which is as inevitable as the Democrats. Eventually it will be unwieldy.The Dems are out for petty payback and they mean to have it. Nobody has done anything and rather than trying to play innocent, THAT is much to my chagrin. The GOP has had the Presidency and both houses of Congress twice since 2000 and squandered it both time with petty infighting. Had the GOP put as much effort into going after Dem BS they spent thwarting Trump, this Nation would be in a lot better shape.

But I'm sick of Democrats and their threats. Now they threaten the Supreme Court? Even I would think twice before doing that.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

OK... here's my prediction... after Trump, if a democrat takes the White House... and they go ape shit with their agenda and corrupt means of instituting it, attacking the 2nd amendment especially, states secede, LE agencies tell the feds to pound sand and America falls into total turmoil. Not going to say a second civil war, not in the sense like the first one, taking sides and shooting it out, but it will turn into a civil war of sorts. Depends on how bad things get though too. It could turn into a shooting war. I think the divide in America between the radical left and patriotic conservative America is that bad. I think the democrats are already at war with patriotic America and it's founding. The republicans just need to wise up and admit they're in a fight. They seem to be in some fog pretending they don't need to care, or as Gunny says, "like tomorrow is never going to get here." I guess when you're rich and in power, your bubble taints reality.

I could be wrong, hope I am.

[Gunny]

Something else: I was some squabble about who can say what in terms of what some people think are threats. Here's MY submission for consideration: I hope every single brand name Dem chokes on a chicken bone and drops face down in their soup and drowns. That isn't a threat. Not very Christian-like to say the least. In poor taste and inciteful for those that still think we're going to somehow talk ourselves out of a war or living in country that hardly resembles the US Constitution more than it already doesn't.

But I mean every word of it and so far, the dream police haven't caught up to me.

[Kathianne]

Something else: I was some squabble about who can say what in terms of what some people think are threats. Here's MY submission for consideration: I hope every single brand name Dem chokes on a chicken bone and drops face down in their soup and drowns. That isn't a threat. Not very Christian-like to say the least. In poor taste and inciteful for those that still think we're going to somehow talk ourselves out of a war or living in country that hardly resembles the US Constitution more than it already doesn't.

But I mean every word of it and so far, the dream police haven't caught up to me.

I basically agree, but in my head I hear my mom, "You are going to feel awful when a Democrat chokes on a chicken bone or drops face down in their soup and drowns.' LOL!

[Gunny]

OK... here's my prediction... after Trump, if a democrat takes the White House... and they go ape shit with their agenda and corrupt means of instituting it, attacking the 2nd amendment especially, states secede, LE agencies tell the feds to pound sand and America falls into total turmoil. Not going to say a second civil war, not in the sense like the first one, taking sides and shooting it out, but it will turn into a civil war of sorts. Depends on how bad things get though too. It could turn into a shooting war. I think the divide in America between the radical left and patriotic conservative America is that bad. I think the democrats are already at war with patriotic America and it's founding. The republicans just need to wise up and admit they're in a fight. They seem to be in some fog pretending they don't need to care. I guess when you're rich and in power, your bubble taints reality.

I could be wrong, hope I am.States are not going to secede. Dems own most state and local governments because their rat-infested districts get more votes than rural ones.

It would take an armed rebellion. The right can't even get behind its own President in the best interest of the greater good. Think they're going to pull off a war to topple a government? And it will be against the US Government once the Dems get control again and they wouldn't hesitate to use the US military against any such threat. For all its talk, the right isn't going to do a damned thing. Do they ever?

[Kathianne]

States are not going to secede. Dems own most state and local governments because their rat-infested districts get more votes than rural ones.

It would take an armed rebellion. The right can't even get behind its own President in the best interest of the greater good. Think they're going to pull off a war to topple a government? And it will be against the US Government once the Dems get control again and they wouldn't hesitate to use the US military against any such threat. For all its talk, the right isn't going to do a damned thing. Do they ever?

I'm just along for the ride at this point.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

States are not going to secede. Dems own most state and local governments because their rat-infested districts get more votes than rural ones.

It would take an armed rebellion. The right can't even get behind its own President in the best interest of the greater good. Think they're going to pull off a war to topple a government? And it will be against the US Government once the Dems get control again and they wouldn't hesitate to use the US military against any such threat. For all its talk, the right isn't going to do a damned thing. Do they ever?
Well, I think states will secede. Your own state of TX has brought it up many times already, and there's states that are a lot more conservative than TX now, like TN.

There's also a constitutional convention of states, article V of the constitution. That could happen too.

And I'd never say never... a shooting war might break out. If highways get dangerous and the truckers refuse to drive into cities to deliver food, then I'm tellin' ya, the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan, seriously, hit the fan. Cities will go full blown anarchy because people will starve, and we don't have enough military to take control of it either, not all of it.

[Kathianne]

Well, I think states will secede. Your own state of TX has brought it up many times already, and there's states that are a lot more conservative than TX now, like TN.

There's also a constitutional convention of states, article V of the constitution. That could happen too.

And I'd never say never... a shooting war might break out. If highways get dangerous and the truckers refuse to drive into cities to deliver food, then I'm tellin' ya, the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan, seriously, hit the fan. Cities will go full blown anarchy because people will starve, and we don't have enough military to take control of it either, not all of it.

I have to go full Gunny on this, not going to happen.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I have to go full Gunny on this, not going to happen.
That's fine... nothing wrong with disagreeing.

[Gunny]

Well, I think states will secede. Your own state of TX has brought it up many times already, and there's states that are a lot more conservative than TX now, like TN.

There's also a constitutional convention of states, article V of the constitution. That could happen too.

And I'd never say never... a shooting war might break out. If highways get dangerous and the truckers refuse to drive into cities to deliver food, then I'm tellin' ya, the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan, seriously, hit the fan. Cities will go full blown anarchy because people will starve, and we don't have enough military to take control of it either, not all of it.TN is not more conservative than TX. I point I have tried to make for years. Conservative/liberal is not the same in each and every place. A CA "conservative" would be a liberal here.

States won't secede because when the shit does hit the fan, the Dems will have all the cards stacked in their favor. It requires votes to secede.

The talk in Texas about secession, btw, was just reelection talk. Nobody HERE took it seriously. The MSM and left had a field day with it though.

The food thingy is what was the last straw in the US Civil War. The South had all the agriculture and the North wanted it so they took it. Not a lot of difference this time around. Only the names have changed. The North/Dems are STILL the progressives willing to kill any and everyone it takes to get their stuff and the South/Midwest/are STILL the conservatives. The lines of demarcation are just not as clear as "North and South" as they were then.

[Kathianne]

and there's differences in what 'conservative' or 'liberal' means within those groupings.

I'm very different than many here, though there are many areas of agreement. If we compared our voting rates over the years, likely not much difference.

But, things change, times change.

I and others that are different than many are as I said, "Along for the ride."

Same holds for liberals. There are many so called socialists and some that I'd call communists. Within all those though are many 'liberals' that don't sound much different than Donald Trump in answering questions on polls or previous areas of support.

[Gunny]

If the Dems "come to pass" with all their kooky crap, I have been seriously considering a couple of alternative countries I used to live in. "Age" and "family" keep getting in the way. The best way to not have to bow down to someone is to not be there. Since I won't bow down for sh*t, seems the wiser course of action is to just leave.

[icansayit]

There are THREE (3) Co-Equal Branches of Government

To ensure a separation of powers, the U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens' rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches.
Branches of Government | House.gov
https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government

[Gunny]

There are THREE (3) Co-Equal Branches of Government

To ensure a separation of powers, the U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens' rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches.
Branches of Government | House.gov
https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government


If the Dems get control of the House and Senate with a large enough majority in each, they can flat screw the other two branches.

[STTAB]

States are not going to secede. Dems own most state and local governments because their rat-infested districts get more votes than rural ones.

It would take an armed rebellion. The right can't even get behind its own President in the best interest of the greater good. Think they're going to pull off a war to topple a government? And it will be against the US Government once the Dems get control again and they wouldn't hesitate to use the US military against any such threat. For all its talk, the right isn't going to do a damned thing. Do they ever?

I said essentially the same months ago, the GOP is FAR worse than then DNC, at least the DNC fight to win, the RNC? Not so much. The essentially wasted two first years of Trump's Presidency? 100% the fault of Republicans, if Paul Ryan hadn't been such a fucking weasel and butthurt McCain would have done the world a favor and died in early 2016, things would be far different right now.

Those two men will go down in the annals of history as the worst Republicans ever.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

TN is not more conservative than TX. I point I have tried to make for years. Conservative/liberal is not the same in each and every place. A CA "conservative" would be a liberal here.

States won't secede because when the shit does hit the fan, the Dems will have all the cards stacked in their favor. It requires votes to secede.

The talk in Texas about secession, btw, was just reelection talk. Nobody HERE took it seriously. The MSM and left had a field day with it though.

The food thingy is what was the last straw in the US Civil War. The South had all the agriculture and the North wanted it so they took it. Not a lot of difference this time around. Only the names have changed. The North/Dems are STILL the progressives willing to kill any and everyone it takes to get their stuff and the South/Midwest/are STILL the conservatives. The lines of demarcation are just not as clear as "North and South" as they were then.
IDK, Gunny... "the people" might DEMAND secession, and then whoever is in charge might have a full blown insurrection in their state if they don't. However you look at it, whatever you call it, it won't end well.

[STTAB]

If the Dems get control of the House and Senate with a large enough majority in each, they can flat screw the other two branches.

Hell man, look what they are doing with a small majority in the House and the minority in the Senate.

Because Republicans are gutless worms.

[Gunny]

IDK, Gunny... "the people" might DEMAND secession, and then whoever is in charge might have a full blown insurrection in their state if they don't. However you look at it, whatever you call it, it won't end well.It's going to "end well". Sorta. Depends on whose side you're on. The left is going to keep on keeping on, pushing, lying, stealing, a few commit suicide :rolleyes:, in lockstep.

And the right is going to keep giving ground until they find there's nothing left to give and not a shot in anger will have been fired.

[SassyLady]

I used to prep like I wanted to survive TEOTWAWKI but now I just think I'll let the fuckups live with their mistakes and take the easy way out. I'm tired of all the BS.