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
They were already planning on doing this anyway!!! WAKE UP!!!
Which is EXACTLY what America NEEDS! Conservative Majority! Maybe THEN, Holder would see some consequences for his TREASON!
this reminds me when fdr was in the white house and the supreme court kept ruling against him in cases so he proposed a plan to pack the court with more judges based on how long the existing judges had been there
If that piece of shyt holder was in prison or executed for his crimes, then, we wouldn't have to listen to his tantrum today. holder, you pos, if Trump puts another consrevative judge on the bench it would be a 5 to 4 mix, as john roberts is being black mailed to vote against America on EVERY major issue, releasing the sexually depraved and confused, daca, obamacare. And, anyone with more than 1 brain cell knows that with all the marxists election chaos and fraud, it will come down to the supreme court to decide the winner.
You are unlikely to see Holder go to jail as the GOP lives in a Glass House... the GOP can't throw stones without the risk of bringing down their own house. Both political parties are up to their neck in criminal conduct. The Deep State risks setting off a cascade of criminal charges landing everyone in jail if they start prosecuting.
Our nation is being held hostage by a criminal elite which is not likely to go anywhere soon... Eric Holder's crimes have reached the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS and may be exempt from prosecution. United States Code 18 Section 3282, the statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years. However, the statute of limitations may be longer or may not exist for certain crimes.
Individuals who committed crimes in the Obama Administration may soon breathe deeply, as the 5-year statute of limitations on prosecutions is approaching for many of their crimes. Of course, AG Barr and Special Counsel Durham know this and still, they stall prosecution after prosecution.
The DOJ and FBI appear more interested in OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE as the clock runs down on the Federal Statute of limitations. Pres. Trump is aware of this situation, raising the question: Does he want to enforce the law or not?
I agree... in fact, Justice Roberts needs to be called into the Oval Office along with AG Holder and given a dossier with all the evidence supporting possible criminal indictments against him ... and then asked to resign... effective immidiately. Trump can then appoint two new justices to the Court and designate a new Chief Justice.
I am praying the unrighteous are removed and he is one of the top ones on my list. And that the righteous are seated in Godly authority. Amen.
Maybe, just maybe, the power of the SCOTUS has been overextended... Now that the Court is swinging hard right, the left is concerned with its composition and power.
Maybe, just maybe, the Court's powers should be reviewed... to aline it with our founding fathers' intent. The Court and the doctrine of 'Stare Decisis', (case law and precedent), have been abused to create law. Thus the Courts have usurped Constitutional powers that belong only to Congress.
Unelected Judges are not Constitutionally permitted to redefine the Constitution or statutory law... their jurisdiction, dicta, and judgments must be limited to the case in law before the court. If they find a law to be unconstitutional, they may so adjudicate, giving relief to the case before them. However, they may not apply their judgment and relief universally, thus negating the law.
It is up to Congress to take the Court's judgment under advisement... If they agree they may modify the law or revoke it, to comply with the Court's Judgment. If Congress DISAGREES with the SCOTUS, they need do nothing, as the law stands as written and the Court is rebuked.
If the Court ignores Congress's rebuke, the Justices so acting must be IMPEACHED for Bad Conduct. Congress, not the Courts legislates law. There is no legal doctrine defining the Law of the Court as the law of the land... That doctrine is unconstitutional on its surface.
Yes, yes, right, yes, YES!
In complete agreement
Trump 2020! Take back the house, pack the court!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next