• Latest
  • All
Liberty in jeopardy: Biden moves to pack the Court

Liberty in jeopardy: Biden moves to pack the Court

April 15, 2021
Former Louisville University professor wins $1.6 million over dismissal for criticism of transgender treatments for children

Former Louisville University professor wins $1.6 million over dismissal for criticism of transgender treatments for children

April 26, 2025
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Author: Alfredo Borba

Pope Francis passed away at the age of 88

April 21, 2025
Author: Tom Morris

U.K. Supreme Court defines woman based on biological sex

April 16, 2025
New Colorado bill punishes moms and dads for rejecting trans ideology

New Colorado bill punishes moms and dads for rejecting trans ideology

April 5, 2025
Female fencer Stephanie Turner faces penalties for refusal to compete against transgender opponent

Female fencer Stephanie Turner faces penalties for refusal to compete against transgender opponent

April 3, 2025
Georgia Governor to sign Riley Gaines Act of 2025, safeguarding women’s sports from transgender ideology

Georgia Governor to sign Riley Gaines Act of 2025, safeguarding women’s sports from transgender ideology

April 2, 2025
Humanity’s indispensable but unsung heroes

Humanity’s indispensable but unsung heroes

March 18, 2025
AfD politician slams leftist abortion agenda in staunchly pro-life speech

AfD politician slams leftist abortion agenda in staunchly pro-life speech

March 12, 2025
Maine locals rally against Governor Mills’ stance on transgender participation in sports

Maine locals rally against Governor Mills’ stance on transgender participation in sports

March 1, 2025
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

J.D. Vance criticizes Europe’s disregard for pro-life advocates and religious freedom at Munich Security Conference

February 20, 2025
  • About iFamNews
  • Contact

Navigation Button Subscribe

  • Subscribe
May 11, 2025
  • Login
  • Register
No Result
View All Result
  • English
    • Italiano
    • Español
    • Français
    • Deutsch
    • Polski
    • српски
    • Русский
    • Hrvatski

Navigation Button Donate

  • Donate
International Family News Network (IFN)
  • Home
  • Opinion
  • Life
  • Family
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Shows
  • Petitions
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
International Family News Network (IFN)
  • Home
  • Opinion
  • Life
  • Family
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Shows
  • Petitions
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
No Result
View All Result
International Family News Network (IFN)
No Result
View All Result

Liberty in jeopardy: Biden moves to pack the Court

We must not be silent. At stake is that judicial independence which is the crown jewel of our constitutional system so brilliantly designed to prevent tyranny and preserve our liberty.

E. Douglas Clark by E. Douglas Clark
April 15, 2021
in Breaking News, Foreground, Politics
1.1k
Reading Time: 6 mins read
0
Liberty in jeopardy: Biden moves to pack the Court
Share on FacebookShare on WhatsAppShare on TelegramShare on TwitterShare on WeChat

Never had there been such a concentration of political genius as happened in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. “If all the delegates named for this Convention at Philadelphia are present,” commented French Chargé d’affaires Louis-Guillaume Otto, “we will never have seen, even in Europe, an assembly more respectable for the talents, knowledge, disinterestedness, and patriotism of those who compose it.” Ardent students of the past, the delegates well knew that the liberty they sought to secure could be accomplished only by a separation of powers, as expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

The enduring importance of Madison’s insight was brought home over two centuries later by Justice Antonin G. Scalia in his foreword for a 2008 symposium, Separation of Powers as a Safeguard of Federalism, in which he explained,

In the days when I taught constitutional law, the University of Chicago Law School had two constitutional courses. One was entitled Individual Rights and Liberties, and focused primarily upon the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The other (I forget the title of it) focused upon the structural provisions of the Constitution, principally the separation of powers and federalism. That was the course I taught-and I used to refer to it as real constitutional law…. [I]t is a mistake to think that the Bill of Rights is the defining, or even the most important, feature of American democracy. Virtually all the countries of the world today have bills of rights. You would not feel your freedom secure in most of them… Consider, for example, the following sterling provisions of a modern bill of rights:

“Every citizen.., has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organisations for improving their activity, and to criticize shortcomings in their work…. Persecution for criticism is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account.”

“[C]itizens… are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations. Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets, and squares at the disposal of the.., people and their organizations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.”

“Citizens… are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship, or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.”

Wonderful stuff. These were provisions of the 1977 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They were not worth the paper they were printed on, as are the human rights guarantees of a large number of still-extant countries governed by Presidents-for-Life. They are what the Framers of our Constitution called “parchment guarantees,” because the real constitutions of those countries—the provisions that establish the institutions of government—do not prevent the centralization of power in one man or one party, thus enabling the guarantees to be ignored. Structure is everything.

The Founders further knew that separation of powers could never be maintained without an independent judiciary, as noted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78: “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.” No wonder Chief Justice William Rehnquist could declare that an independent judiciary is “the crown jewel of our system of government.”

One of the most dangerous potential threats to that crown jewel was addressed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an NPR interview broadcast on July 24, 2019. By then, a number of congressional Democrats, disgruntled over President Trump’s appointment of two Justices (Ginsburg’s passing would soon open the way for a third), had discussed the idea of “packing” the Court by increasing the number of Justices if a Democrat won the presidency. When asked about that possibility, Ginsburg—a liberal who had opposed Scalia on many issues but saw eye-to-eye on the need to preserve separation of powers—responded, “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”

And it would be bad now, she continued. “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’” Doing so, she warned, would undermine public trust, upon which our judicial independence depends. “The court has no troops at its command, doesn’t have the power of the purse, and yet time and again, when the courts say something, people accept it.”

The same point would be made even more emphatically and at far greater length by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court’s senior liberal member, speaking at Harvard Law School’s annual Scalia Lecture on April 6, 2021. “What I’m trying to do,” he explained, “is to make those whose initial instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes—such as forms of court-packing—think long and hard before they embody those changes in law…. It is wrong to think of the Court as another political institution. And it is doubly wrong to think of its members as junior-league politicians,” he said. “Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust. There are no shortcuts to it.”

As summarized on the Harvard Law website, “Justice Breyer’s wide-ranging two-hour lecture, which was brimming with quotations from the likes of Cicero, Shakespeare, and Camus, and which cited more than 20 Supreme Court decisions spanning two centuries of American jurisprudence, was titled ‘The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics.’ In it, he traced the history of the judicial branch’s hard-won credibility since the nation’s founding, and implored would-be Supreme Court reformers… to confront how changes could impact one of the nation’s most trusted institutions.”

Just three days later, President Joe Biden took the first step down a road toward doing precisely what Justices Breyer and Ginsburg had warned against. By executive order on April 9, 2021, Biden created a commission to analyze “the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform.” No one doubts that such “reform” refers to the very issue that candidate Biden refused to address in his first presidential debate. When repeatedly asked if he supported packing the Court, he finally responded, “I’m not going to answer the question.”

The clearer his answer now looms, the greater the need for all Americans to oppose it. “For all their historical errors and faults, courts are nevertheless indispensable institutions in our constitutional system,” says Princeton Professor Robert P. George, “and the independence of the judiciary is a sacrosanct principle. It is not that the number 9 is sacred or constitutionally required. It isn’t. But if the number of Justices on the Court is to be increased (or decreased), that decision must not be motivated and shaped by ideological goals. Even Roosevelt understood that well enough to realize he had to lie about the real purposes of his court-packing plan. The plan failed.”

Will the current plan fail? History has taught us, observed Ethiopia’s Haile Selassie, that “it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.” We must not be silent. At stake is that judicial independence which is the crown jewel of our constitutional system so brilliantly designed to prevent tyranny and preserve our liberty.

Tags: ConstitutionPresident BidenSupreme Court
E. Douglas Clark

E. Douglas Clark

E. Douglas Clark is an attorney and Director of UN and International Policy at the International Organization for the Family. For two decades Doug has been on the forefront of defending the family at the United Nations as a lobbyist and strategist, leading teams and consulting with policymakers in New York and around the world. His writings include the World Family Declaration and articles in The Natural Family: An International Journal of Research and Policy and Ave Maria International Law Journal. After earning MBA and JD degrees from Brigham Young University, he practiced banking law and served as director of content of the original Law.com.

Discussion about this post

Popular News

  • The new Pope is Robert Prevost, and his name will be Leo XIV. He continues to be denounced in Peru for covering up sexual abuse by priests.

    The new Pope is Robert Prevost, and his name will be Leo XIV. He continues to be denounced in Peru for covering up sexual abuse by priests.

    0 shares 28 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Two Spanish ministers denounced for embezzlement in contracts awarded to Tragsa

    0 shares 23 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Christian Lawyers request to the City Council of Callosa (Alicante) the replacement of the cross after confirming that the re-signified crosses do not violate the Law of Historical Memory.

    0 shares 13 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • A judge in Tortosa (Catalonia) investigates the procession of the “Santa Baldana” that brought out the virgin surrounded by black pudding.

    0 shares 11 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Habemus Papam! Fumata blanca: first article of the new pontificate of Esperanza

    0 shares 11 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0

IFN – International Family News Network

© 2022 IFN – International Family News - All Rights Reserved.

Quick Links

  • About iFamNews
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
Subscribe

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Opinion
  • Life
  • Family
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Shows
  • Petitions
  • Subscribe
  • Donate

  • en English
  • it Italiano
  • es Español
  • fr Français
  • de Deutsch
  • pl Polski
  • sr српски
  • ru Русский
  • hr Hrvatski
  • Login
  • Sign Up

© 2022 IFN – International Family News - All Rights Reserved.