Saturday, during an appearance on MSNBC’s “PoliticsNation,” former Attorney General Eric Holder told host Al Sharpton if Republicans succeeded in confirming a replacement for Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointed by President Donald Trump, a future Democrat Senate majority along with Joe Biden, if he is elected president, should consider “court reform.”
According to Holder, such a measure would mean adding justices to the Supreme Court.
“You would put in place — if this is allowed to happen, a 6-3 court,” he said. “And with all the issues you have talked about, you would have a conservative majority — or illegitimate conservative majority on the court ruling on the matters that will affect the nation for generations to come.
read more:
Replies
That sounds like whinning with fear.
HIlarious.....he was the most corrupt AG in U.S. history, bar none!
Sadly AG Barr is, in fact, Barring None... He is doing nothing to prosecute or disbar Eric Holder.... nothing. Tell me crime doesn't pay! Holder and thousands of others have become extremely wealthy avoiding prosecution and the long arm of the law.
The Supreme Court has been granted authority far beyond that given by the Constitution. Both Congress and the Executive branches have sheepishly granted it power that it does not hold. The Court is not a philosophical resivoir of wisdom. It is a Court, and nothing more, and nothing less.
It cannot make law. Congress does that. In making law Congress must interpret the Constitution. In signing, the President is also interpreting the law. How can a President uphold the Constitution and his oath to do so without interpreting it? He can't.
Thomas Jefferson warned, " To consider Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions would place us all under the despotism of an oligarchy." And that is precisely what has happened.
The Court should be reigned in. Justices should know their job, Once again, academia produces people lodging in government, media, and the Courts who are either grossly ignorant, or willfully criminal.
Exactly, the Court's findings apply only to the case in law before them... the Court's judgments do not extend to all cases in law, to suggest they do so is to legislate by judicial edict, creating the law of the Court.
There is no legal or Constitutional basis for stare decisis to become the Law of the Court. There can be only one law of the land, and that law emanates from the Constitution itself and the legislative acts of Congress.
Judicial judgment and the dicta of the Court does not extend to any case other than the present case before the Court. There is no legal basis for the Court to give 'case law' precedence over the Acts of Congress or Constitutional Law.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next