Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

I have talked a lot online and on the air about Socialism and Marxism and the destruction they unleash where ever they are applied but the problem is always how to explain it to young people taken in by this.

The goal of Marxists and Socialists is not a country filled with prosperous and well fed people, but a country where the people are governed by prosperous and well fed Marxists and Socialists.

Look at every country that is rules by Marxists, Socialists and Communists and this is true. In fact just look at cities run by the left where where Nancy Pelosi can get her hair done in SF but you couldn’t or NYC where the elite of the Music World can have an award show but you can’t go to a bar or even Atlanta where they can have a large funeral for John Lewis but you can only have ten to bury your father or mother.

Under Marxist / Socialists the elites are always prosperous and well fed always doing well and those outside of it are equally miserable.

President Trump reportedly is set to appoint Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday. Barrett is eminently qualified but will be “controversial” nonetheless, as the Democratic senators scour her seemingly exemplary life in a desperate attempt to justify their inevitable opposition. Whatever they come up with, it’s little more than a cover for the fact that the Democrats prefer judges who adhere to “living Constitutionalism” instead of Barrett’s originalism.

“Living Constitutionalism” refers to a judicial method of weighing a case where the strictures of the U.S. Constitution are, well, more malleable than perhaps what an originalist would find. So it allows a Justice to find a right to same-sex marriage embedded in a document that was written by men who would have thought the idea absurd at best. And it allows a Justice to discover a “right to privacy” in the penumbras and emanations of other rights actually mentioned in the founding law of the land.

What living Cons often don’t seem to consider, however, is that, after turning the law into clay instead of stone – the better to spin it into whatever form one likes – the potter might change before the clay is finally baked. When it’s 5 or 6 conservative judges on the Court, Democrats should be thankful these judges adhere to a stonier Constitution. Tougher to chip off marble and granite than spin mud.

When living Cons disagree on a question of a law’s constitutionality, doesn’t the difference inevitably become a question of preferred outcomes? If you can find rights wherever you like, isn’t it then the case that where you don’t find rights, it drills down to the fact that you simply preferr the other outcome?

For example, the late Ruth Ginsberg frequently found in favor of copyright holders, including studio behemoths Disney, Time Warner, and Universal, in disputes with start-ups or independent publishers, such as in the landmark copyright case Eldred v. Ashcroft, for example.

In Eldred, Justices Breyer and Stevens, both living Cons who frequently vote[d] with Ginsberg on major cases, dissented from Ginsberg majority opinion. They found constitutional violations in an extension of the copyright term.

Whether Breyer and Stevens were correct or not is not the point here. Instead, that Ginsberg failed to see a constitutional violation suggests she didn’t because she preferred an outcome in favor of the corporate behemoths who lobbied for a longer copyright term (the better to protect the cash flo- er, the integrity of their creations).

Ginsberg, corporate stooge?

How else am I to interpret it, when she so frequently ruled in their favor? If the Constitution is alive, why didn’t she kill such oligarchism?

Fortunately, Barrett – or whomever Trump selects – will issue rulings with a stronger foundation: using the actual meaning of the law, not what she – or he – wishes the law meant.

Right now the Democrats are going all in on the idea that a president appointing a SCOTUS justice just before an election or as a lame duck and the senate approving such a nominee before an election or in a lame duck session is an injustice akin to lynching to the point where they are justifying violence, saying the SCOTUS rulings should be ignored and

Given this situation I think the GOP should make an important gesture to let the Democrats know that they are willing to give their concerns serious consideration.

If I’m Mitch McConnell just before the vote on whoever Donald Trump’s SCOTUS nominee is I would offer the following two constitutional amendments for a vote.

DaTechGuy SCOTUS Amendment #1:

(1) No sitting president shall nominate nor shall the US Senate vote on any nominee for the SCOTUS in the period sixty days before a national election for President

(2)No sitting president shall nominate, nor shall the US Senate vote on any nomination for SCOTUS in a Lame duck session between the election and the swearing in of the next administration excepting when:

A: The sitting president has just been re-elected

B: The incoming president elect consents to said nomination

(3) This amendment shall be allotted twelve months from the date of passage for ratification by the states with a single extension of twelve months if requested by single any member of congress.

This vote should be pushed at once. If the Democrats really believe this, then they should rush to approve it and send it to the states. If they refuse to do so then we know all their protestations for “fairness” is BS.

I would also push the following Amendment

DaTechGuy SCOTUS Amendment #2

(1) The Supreme Court shall be limited to a minimum of 9 members and a maximum of 11 members

(2) This amendment shall be allotted twelve months from the date of passage for ratification by the states with a single extension of twelve months if requested by single any member of congress.

The Democrats keep talking about “packing” the court. Well if they want to increase the court’s size and are convinced that the polls showing a Joe Biden victory are real here is their chance.

Let’s get these to the states and see if the leftists screaming for this actually mean it.

Make them vote on all of these and watch them squirm.

Closing thought:

I’d also consider offering this third amendment to cover Ted Cruz’s worry about a split court during an election dispute

DaTechGuy’s SCOTUS Amendment #3

(1) If the SCOTUS membership is at 8 or 10 during a presidential election dispute a retired member of the SCOTUS shall sit as a “senior justice” on the court to hear any such dispute.

The position of “senior justice” shall be offered to the most recently retired Justice. If said justice declines the offer to sit the next most recently retired Justice shall be made this offer until a justice is found.

(2) If no retired justice is available to sit as a “senior” justice the most senior appeals court justice in the US court system shall serve as a “temporary justice” on the court exclusively to hear said dispute.

For the purpose of this amendment “Most senior” shall be defined as the justice with the longest tenure on federal court of appeals. If case of a tie then the entire time in the federal court system shall be a tiebreaker.

(3) This amendment shall be allotted twelve months from the date of passage for ratification by the states with a single extension of twelve months if requested by single any member of congress.

I particularly like this one because it honors a judge who likely is very qualified for SCOTUS but would never be nominated due to age.