By Duncan Smith
No sooner than news broke that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away after losing what was only her latest battle with cancer, Democrats convulsed.
Most of them did not take the time to first express their condolences for the late long-serving liberal icon justice.
Rather, they tripped over themselves to make threats and demands against President Trump and majority Senate Republicans, screeching that the not to dare think about naming her successor ahead of the November elections (that they are planning to steal with fraudulent mail-in ballots).
Trump trumped them and said he was going to do so — right before he implored Senate Republicans to ensure his nominee gets to the high court.
What have Democrats said in response?
‘We’ll pack the court with libs!’
So, not only are they claiming Trump and the GOP Senate don’t have the right to do their constitutional duty to replace Ginsburg because there is an election in a few weeks, they are threatening court-packing, a la FDR style.
WWRS — What Would Ruth Say?
We just happen to know, via the Free Beacon:
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments on court packing and election-year judicial nominations loom large over the forthcoming battle for her seat on the Supreme Court.
Ginsburg had criticized both proposals to expand the Supreme Court and the Senate GOP’s year-long blockade of Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016. After her death Friday evening, those statements are sure to resurface as Republicans and Democrats alike flip the script on their own past positions about election-year vacancies and the size of the Court.
Though most Supreme Court justices try hard to remain out of the political fray, Ginsburg sometimes surprised with candid assessments of candidates or political proposals. She brought that forthrightness to bear in a July 2019 interview with NPR when asked about a nascent push on the left to pack the High Court following the confirmation of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
“There is no fixed number in the Constitution,” Ginsburg said. “So this Court has had as few as 5, as many as 10. Nine seems to be a good number, and it’s been that way for a long time.”
“I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see is a temporary situation,” she added. Her remarks echoed those of fellow Clinton appointee Justice Stephen Breyer, who seemed to rebuff the idea at an April 2019 event.
“I think nine is fine,” Breyer said. “I’ve discovered that nine seems to work.”
There has been nine justices on the high court since the 1860s.
But, in a fit of liberalism, Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to ‘pack the high court as well’ after it kept striking down his unconstitutional “New Deal” laws during the Great Depression.
Meaning that nothing has changed with the Democratic Party since at least the 1930s: When Democrats don’t or can’t get their way, they want to change the system to make it work for them — no matter what those changes do to the country.
Only, the woman today’s Democrats say they are seeking to honor would not approve of their methods.
Is Inflation Going to Break the Back of Consumers and our Economy?
Will backed-up supply chains ever catch up to demand?
You have to be prepared for the coming financial reset