Grant’s Rants Discusses the Controversial Commission to Add Seats to the U.S. Supreme Court and Natural Societal Change
Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed official guest host Grant Henry in the studio for another edition of Grant’s Rants.
Let’s talk about Biden’s plan to add more seats to the Supreme Court. So a controversial commission set up by President Joe Biden to explore changes to the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a draft final report on Monday that there was, quote, profound disagreement over whether to add more seats to the Supreme Court bench.
Profound disagreement. The report from the commission, which was established in April, comes as polls show that public approval of the Supreme Court has dropped in recent months. That’s CNN’s reporting right there. And I’m here to say, who cares!
Who cares about the approval rating for the Supreme Court? The court is not there for your approval. The Supreme Court is not there to write our laws and tell us how to change society. It is merely there to interpret laws that the people have duly passed in the federal paper number 78, Alexander Hamilton said, “The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be truly said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment.”
You see, Hamilton pondered that the judiciary should be the least dangerous branch of government because it couldn’t control the military or the money. Now there’s a clear reason why there is a profound disagreement over whether to add more seats in the Supreme Court, even in the progressive Biden administration, because the political tactic to circumvent the will of the people by adding justices is both obvious and perverse.
This is not the first time this has been tried. Just look at what happened to the Commerce Clause when the Roosevelt administration threatened to expand the court. Then the federal government arguably grew more during that time period than at any other point in American history.
And hopefully, there is disagreement within the Biden administration because some of those imbeciles up there recognize that the Supreme Court is not meant to be a political body. Listen ya’ll, Democrats figured out how to circumvent the legislature 50 years ago.
They forced everything to the courts, whether it was abortion to Roe v. Wade decision or same-sex marriage issues through the Borderville decision, or even something like Obamacare when Roberts flip-flopped in the whole tax fee, fee tax nonsense. Democrats have used five unelected people to force their beliefs in the rest of the country for several decades.
And that tactic has squelched the voice of at least half of this country. Why do you think Trump was able to beat Hillary? Because the people had had enough! In some sense, Trump was merely a market force reaction. So change will occur. It must.
But societal change is meant to be slow, a thoughtful, deliberate process whereby you convince your fellow men. Change hearts and minds and cement things in stone by passing a law. Doing it properly means that we don’t have to continually revisit the same issues year after year. Change is inevitable.
Progress is healthy, but it must be done through the proper channels. There’s a very clearly designed constitutional mechanism through which societal change must occur. In other words, the legislature. I’ll end with this story, Michael. Justice Scalia used to tell my favorite story all the time about the passing of the 19th Amendment.
This is the right to vote for women. And of course, everything nowadays is being pushed through the 14th Amendment. This substantive due process claims whether it’s Bergfeld and same-sex marriage or Roe v Wade and abortion, it’s all a 14th Amendment claim. So presumably, the right to vote would be a right.
That is our constitutional protection that’s issued well before the alleged right for women to vote or same-sex marriage or anything.
But if the 14th Amendment actually did mean what it meant, why did women not rely upon that to push the 19th Amendment? The 14th Amendment had been around for 55 years prior to women getting the right to vote.
They didn’t use the 14th Amendment because they wanted it to last. They wanted to set it in stone so that we would never have to visit this issue again. They convinced their fellow man they changed hearts and minds, and they passed the 19th Amendment. again.
There are clearly defined ways to change our society, relying on five unelected people to tell the entire country what to think. That ain’t it. And increasing the number of justices to flip the vote in your favor for a decade or two is borderline treasonous behavior. We deserve better and we know better.
– – –