Democrats Overly Justified In Adding Four Justices To The Supreme Court

SO MUCH FOR ROBERTS ’ BALLS AND STRIKES’, THE COURT THAT BEARS HIS NAME IS A RIGHT-WING RUBBER-STAMP THAT NEEDS TO BE BALANCED OUT.

Some pro­gres­sives made a case for adding jus­tices to the Supreme Court even before the 2020 elec­tions. The log­ic being that in 2016 after right-wing con­ser­v­a­tive jurist Antonin Scalia tran­si­tioned and President Barack Obama nom­i­nat­ed then appeals court Merrick Garland, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked Garland’s advance­ment to the high­est court.
Before Scalia’s pass­ing, the court’s make­up was slant­ed Republican, by virtue of the pres­i­dent who nom­i­nat­ed them to the court.
Conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts. Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito. Anthony Kennedy. Antonin Scalia Conservative.
Liberals, Stephen Breyer. Sonia Sotomayor. Elena Kagan. Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Replacing Antonin Scalia with a mod­er­ate like the now Attorney General Merrick Garland would have tilt­ed the courts 5 – 4 major­i­ty to the Democrats, some­thing Mitch McConnell would do any­thing to stop. And so he refused to meet with judge Garland, refused to hold hear­ings to move Garland’s nom­i­na­tion for­ward, and sub­se­quent­ly, judge Garland was denied an up or down vote, as is the rule in the advice and con­sent role of the United States Senate.

Bitch McConnell claimed that it was an elec­tion year, and the vot­ers should decide which pres­i­dent chose Scalia’s replacement.
That was not a rule; it was a McConnell rule. Donald Trump found his way into the Presidency, and he placed Neil Gorsuch on the court instead of Judge Garland. Kennedy then retired (how con­ve­nient), and he report­ed­ly rec­om­mend­ed that Brett Kavanaugh be his replace­ment. Kavanaugh was on the court.
And then some­thing hap­pened that lib­er­als, Democrats, and even inde­pen­dents feared; on September 18^th, 2020, at age 87, Ruth Bader Ginsburg transitioned.
The Presidential elec­tions were to be held on November 3, 2020; nev­er­the­less, despite less than two months from the pres­i­den­tial elec­tions, Mitch McConnell changed the rules again and decid­ed that he would ram through Amey Coney Barrett, and placed her on the court.
The call from some Progressive quar­ters to place four addi­tion­al jus­tices on the court to bal­ance what Mitch McConnell has done is not only moral­ly jus­ti­fied; it is legal­ly permissible.
President Biden did not promise to add jus­tices to the court; he said in typ­i­cal wishy-washy Democratic fash­ion, how­ev­er, that he would con­vene a com­mis­sion to study the issue.

In the mean­time, the lop­sided 6 – 3 con­ser­v­a­tive court has steadi­ly gone about dis­man­tling set­tled laws. Even as far back as 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts joined Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy in strik­ing down sec­tion 4(b) of the land­mark 1965 Voting Rights Act.
As a Reagan Administration aide John Roberts was long opposed to the rights of African-Americans to vote. John Roberts knew that by strik­ing down the vot­ing rights act, he was open­ing the door for a mas­sive Republican assault on the vot­ing rights of African-Americans. But this was one of the life­long goals of John Roberts.
Roberts claimed that there are no Republican or Democratic Judges; they only call balls and strikes Roberts said, smil­ing. Isn’t it fun­ny how these guys are con­fi­dent that they are vast­ly intel­lec­tu­al­ly supe­ri­or to every­one else?
The sad real­i­ty is that most of the court’s deci­sions under John Roberts have been 5 – 4 deci­sions straight par­ty lines. So much for balls and strikes.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote scathing dis­sents against the Republica major­i­ty’s rul­ings while she was alive, so too has jus­tice Elena Kagan, but jus­tice Sonia Sotomayor an Obama nom­i­nee, has been point­ed in her dis­sent­ing opin­ions, and she did not hold back in her dis­sent to the deci­sion writ­ten by none oth­er than Brett Kavanaugh in the case Mississippi Vs. Jones.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday made it eas­i­er for states to impose sen­tences of life in prison with­out parole on juve­nile offend­ers, rul­ing against a Mississippi man con­vict­ed of killing his grand­fa­ther at age 15 in a case test­ing the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on cru­el and unusu­al punishment.

In a 6 – 3 rul­ing, the jus­tices reject­ed argu­ments by the inmate, Brett Jones, that his sen­tence of life in prison with no chance of parole vio­lat­ed the Eighth Amendment because the judge in his tri­al had not made a sep­a­rate find­ing that he was per­ma­nent­ly incor­ri­gi­ble. The court’s six con­ser­v­a­tive jus­tices were in the major­i­ty, with the three lib­er­al mem­bers dissenting.
So there you have it, balls and strikes; all of the con­ser­v­a­tives cow­ards lined up and decid­ed that it is per­fect­ly okay for kids who com­mit crimes as chil­dren should have no recourse to redemp­tion regard­less of what they have accom­plished in rehabilitation.
Kavanaugh, whose very exis­tence on the court was made pos­si­ble because the indis­cre­tions he was alleged to have com­mit­ted as a young­ster in col­lege, were not allowed by Trump to be inves­ti­gat­ed by the FBI, was the man who penned the deci­sion of the majority.
I guess only young white men are [enti­tled] to redemp­tion? Oh, come on, Mike, is this new to you?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dis­sent­ing opin­ion for the three lib­er­als on the court.
Below is an extract from that opinion.

Mike Beckles is a for­mer Police Detective, busi­ness­man, free­lance writer, black achiev­er hon­oree, and cre­ator of the blog mike​beck​les​.com.