Stacking the Supreme Court

The New York Times published an editorial last week revealing another plan by the Democrats to take back control of the Supreme Court. The basic scenario is that if the Supreme Court continues to lean right (originalist), they'll attempt to add new justices to the court the next chance they get. Here's a little background.

The current Court has nine justices on it. The number of members on the court isn't dictated by the Constitution, but rather by Congress, which is one of the checks and balances of our system of government. There have been a number of modifications to the court over the past two hundred years, with the court ranging from 5 to 10 justices, landing on our current number in 1868.

So, if this is a perfectly legal and acceptable -- as well as precedented -- action, what's my point? My point is simply to illustrate what you will get if Democrats control both Congress and the White House. As I've blogged about before, activist judges are extremely dangerous to the American way of life and the freedoms we possess per the Constitution. It should come as no surpise that a Democrat is likely to lean toward (and appoint) activist judges, just as Clinton did. It takes only a simple majority (51 votes) to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, so it would be very possible if a Democrat won the White House in 2008 while retaining even a slim Congressional majority.

Picture this scenario: Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008 and the Democrats retain their majorities in both houses of Congress. Clinton could drive through a change that would increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices. She would then likely appoint far-left activist judges to fill the two new positions, stacking the Court with a 6-5 activist judge majority. It's not too far-fetched, if the Democrats win the next election cycle.

If you think that activist judges -- who impose their own bias on huge majorities of voters on critical issues including gay marriage, eminent domain, and civil rights for non-citizen terrorists -- are a problem now, just wait until the court is deliberately stacked toward the activist side.

There's my two cents.