Democrats Threaten Retaliatory Actions To Add Or Remove Justices On A “Court Out Of Whack”

Below is my column in The Hill on the call for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself or be impeached. The call for recusal is indicative of demands and threats that are becoming more unhinged by the day.  Whether it is adding or impeaching justices, the Democrats are yielding to the same 30 percent of irate and increasingly irrational voters in their base.  What is concerning is the utter lack of responsible voices from the party to counter this retaliatory impulse or to defend the institution of the Court. Instead, former Vice President Joe Biden’s declaration that the Court is “out of whack” now means that many Democrats are out to whack either the Court or its members.

Here is the column:

Judicial confirmations tend to be staid affairs in the Senate, with rhetoric running from calm regret to restrained celebration. This week, however, the language had the more menacing tenor of a syndicate rather than a Senate. Richard Blumenthal warned of “consequences” if his colleagues dared to confirm in a reference to threats to change the Supreme Court. The message was clear to vote “no” or the Supreme Court gets it.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went full Tony Montana with his “Scarface” version of “You wanna play rough? Say hello to my little friend.” He threatened to use the potential Democratic majority to strip the rights of Republicans that he declared “forfeited” in the confirmation.

Democrats feel disrespected and are threatening acts of retaliation in changing the Senate or the Supreme Court. But the most unhinged was the idea to impeach Amy Coney Barrett after she assumes her seat. This option was raised by columnist Norman Ornstein, who wrote that if she “immediately votes for voter suppression” after she joined the Supreme Court “she should quickly be impeached” because President Trump had “asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”

It does not matter that Barrett denied such a conversation and that no one has an inkling of how she would vote on election challenges that have not even been filed. Ornstein was building on demands from various senators that Barrett promise to recuse herself from any election disputes. Others have demanded her recusal with pending cases, such as the challenge to the Affordable Care Act to be heard next month. After Barrett declined to discuss her personal views on the environment, still others demanded her recusal forever from any cases related to climate change.

The Supreme Court has been asked to block an extension of mail voting in Pennsylvania, and one party demanded Barrett to recuse herself from the case. The demand is legally and logically absurd. Justices are largely their own judges on recusal. While Blumenthal demanded in her confirmation hearing that she has to recuse herself, doing so would raise concerns of impropriety and political influence. Democrats were demanding that she remove herself without any legal basis for recusal. Now they are trying to muscle her out with this “recuse or be impeached” ultimatum.

Since they hold the highest judicial positions, Supreme Court justices do not submit to the review of lower court judges on conflicts. It is rare for justices to recuse themselves from merits cases although, for the 2019 term, the nine justices recused 145 times from the review with possible cases for argument. This is done for a variety of reasons, from financial interests in the underlying claims to personal interests in the parties or litigators. New justices are the most likely to recuse on merits cases due to past involvement in the litigation or decisions, as Justice Elena Kagan did after she served as solicitor general under President Obama.

The recusal standard is in the federal code of law, which details grounds like personal bias or prejudice, prior representation, or financial interests of a justice or her spouse. Democrats have been unable to find any direct conflict and instead count on a weak claim of an appearance of a conflict, but that is based on Barrett being confirmed before the election.

The recusal claim is opportunistic. It also is the flipping of the narrative. Democrats falsely accused Barrett of being nominated for the purpose of striking down the Affordable Care Act. The case concerns severability to remove a provision, like the defunct individual mandate, from the rest of the law to preserve it. No credible legal scholar thinks the Affordable Care Act is about to be struck down because at least two conservative justices will probably vote for severability. Indeed, it is far more likely that the law would be unanimously upheld on severability than struck down.

There is absolutely no indication how Barrett would rule on the issue. Yet Democrats made her confirmation all about a “scheme” by Trump to get her on the Supreme Court to strike down the law, showing the oversized photos of the purported victims at the hearing. The real reason for filling this seat is obvious. Republicans wanted to do this in case they lose the White House or the Senate, and they have been clear about that.

None of this has to do with a recusal from any election cases for Barrett. Claiming a conspiracy theory based on her as a judicial shill is not a legal basis for recusal. It is an insult disguised as a demand. For those folks like Ornstein, it also is one excuse for a “recuse or be impeached” threat. He knows no jurist would recuse herself without any certain legal basis from potential election cases. It would also leave the Supreme Court in danger of a potential tie on some of the most significant rulings in history.

However, that is not the point. By stating a demand that Barrett is unlikely to fulfill, Democrats create another excuse for abusive retaliation. Just as Schumer claims license to strip a future Republican minority of powers or privilege under a Democratic majority, others give themselves license to impeach a justice for refusing to yield to raw political demands.

Democrats are not talking about using their Senate majority in the same way should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, which would be fair action. They are talking about trashing the Senate rules, attacking the Supreme Court, or impeaching Barrett as the license of the victims turned victors. With the latest nomination, Joe Biden declared the Supreme Court is out of whack. Now something or someone is about to be whacked.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

236 thoughts on “Democrats Threaten Retaliatory Actions To Add Or Remove Justices On A “Court Out Of Whack””

  1. Wouldn’t be so bad if the Democrats were the least bit democratic but plain to see that isn’t going to happen. The ones who are LEFT are so far LEFT there is nothing LEFT for them and no purpose for them to exist.

  2. How is it out of whaCK? It still has it’s fair share of socialist and communists and they aren’t even Constitutinialist Citizens? Seems to be me it’s getting in proper shape for the first time in a hundred plus years One more to go would go nicely and with three coming up agewise one Constitutionalist and two socialists we need ONE more to correct a century old imbalance and get our Constitutioinal Republic back .

    1. Why, on a forum that deals with substantive matters in detail, do you post a comment worthy of a non-reading 7th grader? Are you suppressing your intelligence to show affinity for how children react? Or is that really all you have?

  3. I would like to see one Democrat debate one Republican on this assertion:

    The Federal Courts are a legitimate place for political activist lawyers to go to obtain policy goals — results that extend society-wide instead of merely deciding the better case between the 2 litigants.

  4. When their ideology meets reality, leftists invariably become unhinged. They threaten and promise. Their threats can be violent ones like seen in the 20th century, and their promises are false, just like their ideology.

    1. When their ideology meets reality, right-wingers invariably become unhinged. They threaten and promise. Their threats can be violent ones like seen in the 20th century, and their promises are false, just like their ideology.

      1. Do you know which country you’re in?

        The American Founders were “right-wingers.”

        That’s the nature of freedom.

        It’s like the African tribal chiefs who were so free, they started slavery by selling their own tribal members.

        The Constitution never allowed citizens to be enslaved.

        British slavery was an awkward, untenable holdover after its colonies conducted a military revolution against the British Empire.

        The Founders knew it was only a matter of time and compassionate repatriation, primarily for the benefit of the shanghaied Africans.

  5. I’m gonna keep my remote control in my pocket.

    I will need to rapidly turn off the TV every time

    President Harris

    comes on.

  6. Donald Trump Jr. describes Covid-19 deaths in the US as “almost nothing” on a day reporting 1,000 dead.

    I’m sure that he’d also say that those who died on 9/11 were “almost nothing” and those who died in the Vietnam War were “almost nothing”.

      1. You once again resort to your go-to strategy of insults, Allan. Don’t you get bored with it? Do you agree with Jr.?

        1. Your point?

          My point was the you are batshit crazy and if you are not careful you will need a tranquilizer.

          1. You have no points, Allan. You only have the pleasure you clearly take in endless trolling. You troll with insults, you troll with deflection, you troll by pretending that the person you disagree with believes something they don’t believe and then attacking them for that imagined belief. You have a variety of troll strategies.

            It’s unhealthy and boring.

            1. People can read my posts and excluding the banal ones responding to you they know I have something to say whether or not they agree. You do not. I even will put my name on my postings standing behind them. You will not.

              Keep upping your number of posts. It won’t help you win any awards but I don’t think anyone will catch up to you as your numbers are so high and the quality so low.

              Tell your pretend anonymous friends how wonderful you are and have them respond to your postings with a bravo. Maybe one day you will post something that is on point.

  7. Sooo, the main person behind the Steele was a drunk Russian chick??? Somebody please tell Rachel Maddow!
    40-year old Olga Galkina “stood as the dossier’s most important contributor,” WSJ reported, after she was tapped by her old school friend and Steele’s employee, Igor Danchenko, to dig up dirt of Trump’s dealings in Russia using the “vast network of people” from her various jobs in and out of the public sector.

    Described as a public-relations executive, she “fed notes” to Danchenko for the dossier, including many of its most central claims. And of course behind all of this was British spy Christopher Steele, himself paid by Fusion GPS, and behind this the DNC itself.

    They knew each other since the 8th grade in Perm, as the WSJ details:

    Mr. Danchenko told the FBI that a school friend, referred to in heavily redacted FBI notes as “Source 3,” had provided him with information for Mr. Steele “across a wide range of topics,” and stood as the dossier’s most important contributor. The former high-ranking U.S. national-security official told The Wall Street Journal that the source in question was Ms. Galkina.

    At the very time Galkina was feeding Danchenko the information she was locked in an ugly dispute with her employer (the parent company of Webzilla) which she was intent on taking down. A mere eight months after starting at Webzilla in Cyprus, the company was forced to contact Cypriot police over her erratic and even dangerous behavior, which included frequently showing up to work late and drunk while making threats.

    The WSJ notes that its reporters have reviewed the police statement, which revealed further: “The manager told police that an acquaintance of Ms. Galkina had told him he would face deep trouble, including possible death, unless he paid €10,000 ($11,740) in compensation, according to the statement, which was confirmed by a Cypriot official and a person who attended its recording.”

    It is here that the report emphasizes the crucial timeline:

    In November 2016, Ms. Galkina was fired. Weeks later, she implicated Webzilla and Mr. Gubarev in the hacking, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Thus the “damning” information on Trump and associates which triggered a special counsel investigation and what was literally multiple years of 24/7 media Russiagate hysteria originated with a deeply disgruntled executive that was let go after a lengthy and messy fight that even saw local police get involved at one point.

    By 2018 polls showed that a whopping over 80% of Democrats bought into the key claims that collectively made up ‘Russiagate’. The Steele Dossier was of course the major driver that kicked it all off.

    [Vanity Fair wrote the sources were “Senior Russian Foreign Ministry Figure and Former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin” BWAHAHAHAHAHA!]

    In light of the revelation, journalist Mark Ames put it best…

    “So the Steele Dossier that kicked off 4 years of Russiagate hysteria among the US ruling class was cooked up by two Russian alcoholics from Perm. Gogolesque does not begin to describe the grotesque credulity & stupidity of the American elites.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  8. Chuck is very bold

    “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went full Tony Montana with his “Scarface” version of “You wanna play rough? Say hello to my little friend.” He threatened to use the potential Democratic majority to strip the rights of Republicans that he declared “forfeited” in the confirmation.”

    I’m not sure Chuck is ready for where his brave words are taking him.

    1. Chuck has a problem. He has to contend with a potential fight for power with AOC. This means they have to battle each other in the crazy department. Which one can attract the Anonymous pretender group of loonies than the other one and get voted in?

  9. Judge Randy Moss sets discovery plan in suit over whether politics led to firing of FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe. 15 depositions for each side. McCabe’s attorney says that 1 deposition will be for Trump, whether President or not. Trump’s been trying to avoid multiple depositions in other cases.

    1. Judge Randy Moss sets discovery plan in suit over whether politics led to firing of FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe.

      Politics? You mean like McCabe’s scamming around for political reasons?

      1. Only the left beleives that a seniour FBI official – at a level where there are no civil service protections, who be claiming anything about his firing – when he was caught repeatedly lying under oath.

        In any sane era he would slink away never to be heard again.

        There are myriads of excellent reasons for firing McCabe. As acting or assistent director he serves at the pleasure of the president.

        He is lucky the DOJ dropped prosecuting him for lying.

        That was a mistake. Senior law enforcement that lies to investigators or congress should go to JAIL.

        A bent member of the FBI should be treated more harshly than an ordinary citizen guilty of the same offense.

        This should be true whether on the right or left.

        Little is more dangerous than those enforcing the law who think they are above the law.

  10. Anybody who has followed Merrick Garland’s recent opinions and votes now knows that he was and is unfit to be on the Supreme Court.

  11. As long as the Ds changes are not barred by the Constitution, it is fair game. That is the standard that the Rs set.

  12. Oh those awful Democrats… dare they object to the lies and cheating. How dare they get angry with the way in which the party of hypocrites trashes the Constitution and then wraps themselves in it. I have two words for you professor, Merrick Garland.

    You faux outrage is breath taking!.

    1. JH:

      One wonders how following a prescribed Constitutional process and employing majority rule “trashes the Constitution.” But then again, who needs explanations of nonsensical ideas?

      1. If the Democrats increase the size of the court, they’ll also be “following a prescribed Constitutional process and employing majority rule”.

        1. Anonymous:

          “If the Democrats increase the size of the court, they’ll also be “following a prescribed Constitutional process and employing majority rule”.

          Yeah and most dogs have four legs. We were talking about JH’s doltish assertion about the appointment of ACB to SCOTUS being tantamount to “trashing the Constitution,” but if you want to swap irrelevant truisms we surely can.

          Hey, here’s another one: Stupid people typically interject themselves into conversations and make stupid statements.

    1. Harold Haley is the judge who died when shot by a gun Angela Davis bought for some Black Panthers or such like, decades ago

      Yet she is right about this: ““I’ve come to the conclusion that our work as activists is always to prepare the next generation”

      Yes, yes, prepare it for war, survival, victory and conquest. Is that too harsh? well then, if we do not prepare for win, then we are preparing to be enslaved
      prepare politically, socially, physically, emotionally

      This war’s been going since the 60s and mostly just the Left which realizes it. Intergenerational low intensity conflict. this summer it again broke out into insurrection

      the Left has a big advantage. They are not playing for “equality” they are playing for victory. They are not playing for “Freedom” they are playing for victory.

      Victory looks like this: your adversaries defeated, crushed, and not “Equal.”
      Freedom worth dying for looks like this: we are free and the adversaries are not.

      Wake up people, and quit playing intellectual tiddlywinks

      1. Kurtz, you’re full of s…. There is no war , no revolution, and no race war – you’re biggest hope. Americans are closer on issues across party lines now then they were in the 1960s, murders, deaths, and rioting and looting are all down, not up. Virtually all Americans now favor integration and equal opportunity, national health insurance – even fatso keeps promising it – a safety net, Medicare and SS, and gay marriages. You can keep pretending there’s some deep divide, but it’s mostly like Ohio State/Michigan – mindless fan mania, not real differences. The right and left talk about different paths to the same goals and our news, talk radio, and political leaders keep selling us red and grey vs navy and gold, but it’s mostly mindless BS. There will be no revolution and it will not be televised.

        Think about it.

        1. It’s as if you’re on another planet. Your side cannot tolerate the existence of people who disagree.

        2. The goals are completely different and incompatible. The Left wants to confiscate and redistribute wealth. This results in human immiseration.

          The Right wants to produce wealth and use it to build and improve the human condition.

          The Right seeks progress. The Left leads us to annihilation.

  13. A minor point: you should stop using the neologism ‘concerning’. It’s inelegant. ‘Of concern’ does quite well. Not as hideous as ‘impactful’ or the 80s bizspeak tic of using ‘impact’ as a verb, but abrasive nevertheless.

    The thread running through your commentary is that the culture of the Democratic Party and the social nexus for which it is an electoral vehicle is such that they can no longer function in a competitive political order. Since a competitive political order is not sustainable, the question arises as to what’s next. Possible pathways:

    (1) We muddle through until the culture of the Democratic Party improves; the decay of the Democratic Party has not been uniform; in some aspects it has been rotting since about 1935, in some aspects since about 1955, in some aspects since about 1990, in some aspects since about 2002, and in some aspects since about 2013. Doesn’t look too promising. One thing that’s depressing is how little Jimmy Carter, a figure from another era, has been willing to make public statements on the condition of the Democratic Party today.

    (2) The competitive political order is replaced with a technocratic-praetorian regime which is concerned to establish order, social utility, and justice as far as it can manage. See Portugal (1932-74), Spain (1939-75), Chile (1973-88), or Indonesia (1967-98). Establishing such a regime was (in Spain and in Indonesia) a pretty gruesome affair. And it’s hit-and-miss as well. If the character of the military is off, you end up with Argentina as it was from 1943-83.

    (3) We get what the Democrats want, which is a crooked one party state for a generation or two or three. (See the Mexican PRI).

    Not very pleasant prospects.

  14. The court IS OUT IF WHACK. Hopefully the Dems will add five or seven new justices to sit on SCOTUS and have a court that looks and believes in what the populous does.

    This country can only function properly when minority rule (in all three branches of govt) is ELIMINATED.

    The days of the conservative white minority are drawing to a close and you authoritarian geezers are feeling the end nearing.

    I cannot wait to see what happens when the entire (criminal) GOP is made permanently irrelevant.

    Enjoy your end days of autocracy George et al..

    1. Did you feel the same way when the Liberal side of the Supreme Court held the majority or is it only when the shoe is on the other foot that it pinches for you?

        1. You mean the ‘conservative’ majority that cooked up Roe v. Wade, Webster, Romer v Evans, Obergefell, and the most recent decision re-writing statutory law to please politicized homosexuals?

          1. No, I don’t mean that. Do YOU mean that? Given your description, I bet you think Brown v. Board of Ed was “cooked up” too.

        1. People who are demonstrably much smarter than you, spent months debating and formulating a system that not only allows for majority rule, but protects against majority tyranny.
          We do not have a pure democracy abs that is why we have existed for 230+ years.

        2. Olaf, you believe in slavery where 51% can vote to make the other 49% into slaves.

          Now we know the true Olaf.

          1. Allan, you believe in slavery where less than 50% can can vote to make the majority into slaves.

            12% of the U.S. population controls 60% of the Senate.

            1. 12% of the U.S. population controls 60% of the Senate.

              Once again, Civics 101: The House represents the U.S. population. The Senate represents the states.

              1. Learn more civics, Olly.

                Both Representatives and Senators represent PEOPLE. They simply do so in different groupings. The PEOPLE represented in each chamber constitute the entirety of the US population. 12% of the US population controls 60% of the Senate.

                1. Not true. Fools don’t bother reading the data. This was based on a prediction by a pollster and the fool doesn’t even bother to state the year. He is only capable of looking for soundbites. I didn’t want to spend the time checking the numbers because the data was contrived.

                  However it is true that states with low population and high populations have the same number of senators. That was part of the compromise when the Constitution was signed. When people start bellyaching about these things immediately one knows they don’t know their history and don’t recognize that the founders did not want a democracy where 51% can vote the other 49% into slavery. Fools like Anonymous will never get this straight in their minds.

                  Keep posting your drivel Anonymous. I find it entertaining to observe the thinking process of a fool.

                  1. The federal structure created by the constitution was DELIBERATELTY to put interest against interest – ambition against ambition.

                    It was DELIBERATELY intended to make it hard for government to act and easy for minorities – to block govenrment action.

                    The intent was that government would be unable to act unless all the interests groups were in agreement.

                    Our founders rejected democracy – government by the people. They recognized democracy as the most tyranical form of govenrment or all.

                    The deliberately constructed a complex republican form of government that established the people as the source of government authority, but severly handicapped them in acting.

                    The structure of the senate is one of the means they constrained government significantly divorcing it from the people, the electoral college is another. In both the Senate and the Presidency it was their EXPECTATION that government might often not reflect the popular interests – but note that when all factions are united govenrment can ACT, but government action is not possible when any significant minority is in opposition.

                    Trump as president has been extremely anti-authoritarian. He has not sought to expand the authority of the president – as Obama did.
                    His “offensive” actions have been enforcing laws that already exist or removing regulations that never should have existed.
                    None of these expand the power of the federal govenrment. All of those are within the power of a minority president or party.

                    1. “The federal structure created by the constitution was DELIBERATELTY to put interest against interest – ambition against ambition.”

                      John, good explanation, but the explanation flies over the heads of the leftists that post frequently on this blog.

                2. Learn more civics, Olly.

                  Always. You need to learn “some.” “Any.”

                  Begin with enough humility to recognize the framers knew far more than you do. Then get the context behind what was put into the constitution. So, why bicameral, if the people were already represented? Wouldn’t the Senate be redundant? What were the concerns of the smaller states regarding state’s rights? How has the 17th amendment affected those rights?

                  At least try.

        3. No, majority rule is undemocratic. Miniroty rule — which you support — is worse, but democracy requires unanimous consent. The solution to the plight of minorities is to give them their own state. You instead have imported foreigners to overwhelm the majority. You’re the aggressor here.

    2. This country can only function properly when minority rule (in all three branches of govt) is ELIMINATED.

      How does that theory work in the Executive branch, headed by 1 individual? How does that theory work in the Legislative branch where the majority in each house “rules”? How does that theory work in the Judicial branch where the majority rules? In other words, all three branches of government are already controlled by the majority. Minority doesn’t rule anything. As of now, we still have a constitution designed not give the minority “power” over the majority. It’s designed to “protect” minority rights. Are you in favor of minority rights being unprotected from majority abuse of power?

      Asking for a friend.

    3. “have a court that looks and believes in what the populous does.”

      How do you know what the populous wants? I doubt you know or understand what you want.

  15. Some of those angry and irrational left wing Dems post comments here.

    Their anger at Trump, their arguments, and their logic suggest a flawed intellect and deeper emotional problems.

    We laugh at their posts, but these people actually vote and walk the streets.

    1. Oh you’re correct…

      I voted, made sure to drive at least 25+ others to the polls, and have rented a bus for Tuesday! I will make sure that I enable at least 75-100 DEMOCRATIC voters by the end of Election Day.

      Oh yes, WE VOTE.


        1. Asking because Trump wants to flip Minnesota red. And now Joe Biden is actually forced to be on the ground campaigning in Minnesota, a state that Republicans haven’t won in 48 years. Wouldn’t that be something? Hahahahaha!

      1. Your comment reminds me how irritated I get when I see people on social media write “Trump’s gonna win in a landslide!” and it makes me wonder if THEY have volunteered to get people out to vote the way you have Olaf, because here’s the thing, all you Trump supporters, don’t sit back at home, on your computer, confidently saying “Trump in a landslide” if you haven’t put in the efforts, making phone calls, renting a bus, getting people out to the polls, like Olaf here has. Call your local GOP office and put in the work! This is not a guaranteed landslide for Trump. Do the work, people!

      2. Oalf:

        “… enable at least 75-100 DEMOCRATIC voters by the end of Election Day.

        Oh yes, WE VOTE.”
        And like Biden, you’ll all probably cast your ballots for Wendell Willkie. We never fear the stupid, the intellectually blind or the unarmed.

    2. What “Logic” are you seeing that few of us do when they go off on a rant like some four year old throwing a temper tantrum when not getting their way?

    3. I know! That is what is sooo scary to me. Millions of brain-dead, delusional Democrats out there. And a bunch of Republican crazies too. That is why I expect Trump to lose. The Zombies always win in the end.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. No they don’t. If they did then mankind neve would have arisen above the cockroaches lizards and rats

        To adopt the attitude of resignation is to be defeated. Human agency matters and free will exists

        1. I am still going to vote for Trump, and I still expect him to lose. I am a realist. I do not discount the huge number of idiots in the country, and I do not trust my fellow Americans to do the smart thing. The fact that the race is even close speaks volumes about American intelligence. I think our country is badly broken and that the USSR beat us in the Cold War by infecting us with Useful Idiots. That program did not have a turnoff switch. The plan was for the Commies to kill them or gulag them when they took over.

          The fact of life is that countries go up and they go down. One Hundred years ago the sun never set on the British Empire. We are headed down, and there will have to be a Hitler or Stalin come in to clean up the mess and take out the garbage. Or, Yellowstone exploding or an asteroid strike, or a prolonged financial depression. But I do not see the downward spiral stopping when so many Americans can live in a delusional state.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. We finally agree Squeaky, “The fact that the race is even close speaks volumes about American intelligence. I think our country is badly broken.”

            We just disagree on who the idiots are and who broke the US.

          2. life is terminal. meanwhile, there is struggle

            devolution happens in big cycles. but it’s like the stock market, temporary ups and downs. you have to eke out gains where you can

      2. “That is why I expect Trump to lose. The Zombies always win in the end.”

        They don’t. You are here and the Pod People disappeared.


        “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

        – Alexander Fraser Tytler

        1. It is long past time to deconstruct completely and re-implement only the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789, along with the vote and immigration restrictions of the Founders.

          American Revolution II – The Sequel – Back to the Future

Leave a Reply