The Supreme Court is Not What It Was Intended to be

Thoughtfully written by guest blogger, Tony Corrado

Traditionally, deliberative boards or committees are comprised of an odd number of members so that ties can be broken and a decision rendered.  The number of voting members is usually decided on the basis of the “importance” of the body itself. Thus a committee of one is sufficient to decide on what type of cupcake icing should be baked for sale at the local fair. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was determined to be composed of nine members, because it’s decisions were possible, and likely, to have long lasting ramifications on the entirety of the US society. The members of such august bodies were generally chosen for their knowledge of the issues affecting society as well as their integrity in supporting their avowed mission, their oath of office  and their willingness to remove personal biases from the deliberative judicial process. The number of SCOTUS justices was intended to ensure a diversity of views and opinions. Divided opinions were supposed to show a diversity of support for the issues, not a politicized view.

This began to change as the nature of the SCOTUS was corrupted, as special interests and politics began to be the basis by which these “esteemed” persons were selected. Chief Justice Roberts was nominated after acting to secure the Bush vs Gore election decision in 2000. The SCOTUS has become more intensely political and irreparably harmed, with the decision by Senate Republicans to break the constitutional requirement to advise and consent on the Presidents nomination to the Supreme Court. They blatantly defied the constitutional requirement and even refused to hold a hearing on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick  Garland. The choice of Garland was an extraordinary one, as the man was not only imminently qualified, but clearly Obama had nominated a moderate in judgement, precisely what the country required if any semblance of healing was to occur.

Merrick Garland is not a member of SCOTUS, simply and only, because the Republican party deliberately chose to refuse to even give the man a hearing. Mitch McConnell actually stated that if Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected president of the United States, they would block any of her nominees. Apparently Mitch McConnell had an epiphany and saw the wisdom of reducing a politicized SCOTUS in total number so as to reduce the effects of corruption or extreme ideology on our democratic processes. He was correct, politicizing the SCOTUS is a mistake and a degenerative SCOTUS simply needs to be diminished in importance and impact until sanity in our politics re-emerges. 

Now that Trump has nominated a right wing zealot with a bias toward those of similar wealth status as himself, as a SCOTUS nominee, it is imperative that the Democrats in Congress concur  with McConnell’s conclusion that nine is far too many members for the Supreme Court to have. I am perfectly content with eight, or, actually, with seven. Or, perhaps six and then five and finally four. Yes, four is a good number. If they are divided politically, or ideology, then they can simply render ineffectual judgements.

It is the patriotic duty for every Senator to refuse to approve any more judges for a seat that it is illegitimate. Further, it is their patriotic duty to recognize the extreme politicization of this previously august body, and to reduce the membership via attrition until a maximum of four or less is attained. Call your Democratic Senators and advise them to filibuster any and all nominees. Also Call your Republican Senators and advise them of their treasonous actions in blocking Merrick Garland and advise them to follow McConnell’s advice in reducing the total number of SCOTUS judges.

As for whether it is treasonous or not, consider this argument, printed and edited, from a Quora posting, namely https://www.quora.com/What-acts-are-considered-treason


Here's one of those definitions:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons...

U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Now, there was a little problem here because it wasn't specifically called out that a Congresscritter violating their legally binding Oath to protect Our Constitution is, in point of Fact, working against the Nation and could be used to adhere to the enemies of Our nation by giving them aid and comfort in protection from Our Laws. So in 1868 they added this bit to make it crystal clear the Congressional Oath of Office was, in Fact, legally binding and that any who violated it should be thrown bodily from the Capitol. 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons...


U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

What this bit does is define Treason against the Constitution as a High Crime and mandates that any Public Official in the US who subverts, evades, or rebellion against Our Constitution be thrown from office and banned forever from service in any Public Office... whether they were elected or appointed. 

Sadly for our bribed and treasonous Congresscritters and judges there is precisely zero wiggle room here. They are specifically bound by the Constitution and actions which attempt to "change" our Constitution without the use of the Constitutionally mandated Amendment Process and all its inherent protections, are committing "insurrection or rebellion against the United States Constitution."