Rubio introduces constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court to 9 justices

Senator Mark Rubio says he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would limit the number of Supreme Court justices to nine.  Rubio cited the stated goal of several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to expand the number of justices.

The Hill:

"To prevent the delegitimizing of the Supreme Court, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to keep the number of seats at nine," Rubio wrote in a Fox News op-ed published Wednesday.

"There is nothing magical about the number nine.  It is not inherently right just because the number of seats on the Supreme Court remains unchanged since 1869.  But there is something inherently good and important about preventing the further destabilization of essential institutions," Rubio added.

The proposal comes as several Democratic White House contenders, including a handful that are Rubio's Senate colleagues, have expressed an openness to expanding the Supreme Court or enacting other judicial reforms, including term limits. 

Both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have said expanding, or "packing," the court should be an option on the table as part of a larger conversation among Democrats about the direction of the U.S. judicial system.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told "Pod Save America" that the idea was "interesting" and she would "need to think more about it."

The Democrats feel they are at a disadvantage in presidential elections because of the Electoral College, so they want to scrap it.  They feel their social justice agenda is being stymied by conservative justices on the Supreme Court, so they want to pack it.  Anyone see a pattern here?

Democrats, despite their takeover of the House, are a losing political party.  In the most favorable political year for an opposition party in more than a generation, they managed to lose three Senate seats.  They lost in 2016 to a foul-mouthed, political rookie, celebrity reality TV star who ran against a woman regularly named "most admired" in the country.

Losing has driven them insane.

How ironic is it that Democrats frequently accuse Trump of "destroying institutions" while now proposing to destroy two of our most cherished institutions?  The destruction of the Electoral College and politicization of the Supreme Court would not make government more efficient or fairer.  It would only serve the interests of the Democratic party and its radical agenda. 

The amendment will be introduced in the House, where it has zero chance of passage.  But something must be done to protect our institutions from the ravages of hyper-partisan Democrats.

Drew Belsky adds: The Supreme Court is one of our "most cherished institutions"?  Does Buck ring a bell?  What about John Roberts's Obamacare decision?  What about Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. SandfordWickard v. Filburn, and Kelo v. New London?  Not to mention millions and millions of innocent babies sucked out of their mothers' wombs and torn limb from limb since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, wherein Henry Blackmun and civil rights god Thurgood Marshall puffed medical degrees for themselves out of thin air, even while pretending not to?  What about Anthony Kennedy's weird existentialist ramblings and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's eugenic fantasies?

Give me a break.  Let's have Rubio put forth a constitutional amendment to bring the number of justices to zero.  That would be something to support.

Senator Mark Rubio says he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would limit the number of Supreme Court justices to nine.  Rubio cited the stated goal of several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to expand the number of justices.

The Hill:

"To prevent the delegitimizing of the Supreme Court, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to keep the number of seats at nine," Rubio wrote in a Fox News op-ed published Wednesday.

"There is nothing magical about the number nine.  It is not inherently right just because the number of seats on the Supreme Court remains unchanged since 1869.  But there is something inherently good and important about preventing the further destabilization of essential institutions," Rubio added.

The proposal comes as several Democratic White House contenders, including a handful that are Rubio's Senate colleagues, have expressed an openness to expanding the Supreme Court or enacting other judicial reforms, including term limits. 

Both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have said expanding, or "packing," the court should be an option on the table as part of a larger conversation among Democrats about the direction of the U.S. judicial system.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told "Pod Save America" that the idea was "interesting" and she would "need to think more about it."

The Democrats feel they are at a disadvantage in presidential elections because of the Electoral College, so they want to scrap it.  They feel their social justice agenda is being stymied by conservative justices on the Supreme Court, so they want to pack it.  Anyone see a pattern here?

Democrats, despite their takeover of the House, are a losing political party.  In the most favorable political year for an opposition party in more than a generation, they managed to lose three Senate seats.  They lost in 2016 to a foul-mouthed, political rookie, celebrity reality TV star who ran against a woman regularly named "most admired" in the country.

Losing has driven them insane.

How ironic is it that Democrats frequently accuse Trump of "destroying institutions" while now proposing to destroy two of our most cherished institutions?  The destruction of the Electoral College and politicization of the Supreme Court would not make government more efficient or fairer.  It would only serve the interests of the Democratic party and its radical agenda. 

The amendment will be introduced in the House, where it has zero chance of passage.  But something must be done to protect our institutions from the ravages of hyper-partisan Democrats.

Drew Belsky adds: The Supreme Court is one of our "most cherished institutions"?  Does Buck ring a bell?  What about John Roberts's Obamacare decision?  What about Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. SandfordWickard v. Filburn, and Kelo v. New London?  Not to mention millions and millions of innocent babies sucked out of their mothers' wombs and torn limb from limb since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, wherein Henry Blackmun and civil rights god Thurgood Marshall puffed medical degrees for themselves out of thin air, even while pretending not to?  What about Anthony Kennedy's weird existentialist ramblings and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's eugenic fantasies?

Give me a break.  Let's have Rubio put forth a constitutional amendment to bring the number of justices to zero.  That would be something to support.