Let’s face it, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.
It’s not just because she’s a socialist. Beyond ideology, she just doesn’t seem to have a grasp of history, the Constitution, or the structures of our government. I’d like to think that means nothing, that she’s a moron and she has no real influence. But unfortunately, it’s her and her radical colleagues who seem to be driving discussion, who are pushing the Democratic agenda further and further left, to the great detriment of this country.
As a member of Congress, AOC takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But, in talking about the court-packing bill introduced by Democrats yesterday calling for the Supreme Court to expand from nine to thirteen members, this is what she was quoted as saying by the Washington Times.
“I do think we should be expanding the court,” she told reporters. “The idea that nine people, that a nine-person court, can overturn laws that … hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocacy and policymakers drew consensus on … we have to … just ask ourselves, I think as a country, how much does that current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does,” she said.
That’s literally the point of the Court, according to the purpose of the Founders, that nine people sometimes overrule laws and decisions of politicians and others. To be above the political fray, to not do what is popular, but to do what is in accordance with the Constitution, however unpopular it might be. The Court’s decision is based on interpretation of the law, not the politics. That’s why justices are given a lifetime tenure, so they are supposed to be above that petty influence, not subject to it.
“How much does that current structure benefit us?” Yikes. According to this logic, why would adding four more justices – what the court-packing Democrats are proposing – make things any better? What’s magical about thirteen? Of course, it’s four more people they can pick, that’s all. She appears to be suggesting that the Court should never be disagreeing with whatever the popular thought of the moment is. Imagine if that were true, the Court would never overturn any evil or incorrect law if it were popular. You would have complete rule of the mob. There would be no real ultimate point to the Court, if you follow her magical thinking to its logical conclusion.
It’s scary that there’s someone in Congress who thinks this way.
Unfortunately, she wasn’t the only one revealing concerning ignorance yesterday, as we reported, as multiple Democrats pushed the court-packing bill.
There was Sen. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) who claimed they were actually “unpacking” the Court.
Democrats once again engaging in Orwellian spin. The GOP filling or not filling vacancies is packing, but actually adding seats to the Court isn’t packing.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) completely lost his mind, claiming the GOP “stole seats” on the Court. He doesn’t get that he’s basically confessing that this is all about trying to bend the Court to their will. Again, the Court isn’t supposed to be about “balance” or politics.
Pro tip, Ed? They’re not your seats, you’re not entitled to have nominated justices confirmed and yes, President Donald Trump was president through the end of his term so he could appoint Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) seems to have put the kibosh on the idea for now, it’s likely only a momentary pause until they get the report from the ‘bipartisan’ commission that Joe Biden created and feel they can marshal the support for the bill. She’s doubtless afraid this will kill them in 2022, that it might whip up the conservative base and get more Americans out against them.