Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Make Liberals Cry Again!


Friends, you won't want to miss my latest article, because it's guaranteed to make liberals cry (again)...or throw their laptops into a lake.  My premise: Trump is headed to victory!  As allegations of fraud proliferate, and as the evidence strengthens, my hope is that Trump and Trump supporters will acquire a granite resolve to fight on.  If we stay united, we can and will prevail...and we'll get those precious "Four More Years" that we've heard so much about.  My article, then, explores what those four years should be like.  See what you think!


  1. DR. NICK

    Good article. Before I post any comments on what I think a second Trump administration should do, I like what Mike Huckabee said recently (how about a post for Mike under a second Trump term?). He said that God created swamps for a purpose, and they serve that purpose well as a filter for the earth. He said Washington is a SEWER, and not a swamp. Thats exactly what Washington is, and has been for a very long time now. Realistically speaking the seat of government should be relocated elsewhere. How about in the middle of the country instead of on the Eastern Seaboard? Think outside the box.

  2. DR. NICK

    You forgot to mention how the Republicans are going to prevent the Democrats from getting back in the White House in 2024 even if Trump gets another four years. There are two ways the GOP can do that:

    1. Pack The Supreme Court. FDR attempted it but failed, although barely as I recall. You can be sure that Joe Biden (and Harris for sure) will do it, and that they will not fail, no matter how very unconstitutional it is. They will make it constitutional or create the impression that it is through the media.

    2. The Republicans need to rig the elections where it will be almost impossible for any Democrat to become President ever again. You can be be sure that the Democrats will do this if Biden is declared the winner. In fact the Democrats would probably rig it so well this time that no one would know the difference between honest elections or fraud.

    If all this sounds cynical and negative, that's because it is. It is actually political reality. Sorry, but the "Democrats" have become a totally Marxist oriented political party where the end really justifies the means.

  3. Ray, relocating some of the functions of government would be effective, but it would also be to give up, fundamentally, on DC and the Beltway and to acknowledge that they are beyond salvation. Maybe they are?

    Ray, you're right of course that, even if we prevail in 2020, the Dems will be a threat in 2024, and neo-Marxism will be a threat until we extirpate it completely. Purging the media by the means I outlined would go a long way. The Democratic Party is unsustainable without constant propaganda to soften up the populace. In addition, encouraging the centrifugal tendencies within the Left would be very helpful. Want to kill the Dems? Write a check to the Greens!

  4. Dr. Waddy, when, on December 14, the electors confirm what is already known -- that Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20 -- won't you feel a great deal of cognitive dissonance?

    After all, you are not just doubling-down on the crazy Trump theory that the election was stolen from him -- you are like quadrupling down. Even AG Barr has not seen any election fraud that would have overturned the election -- and Barr is Trump's Roy Cohn.

    Dr. Waddy, I admire your loyalty, if not your grasp of reality.

  5. A comment was posted on here that "packing" the Supreme Court is "unconstitutional." Someone needs to consult their Constitution and read history. The Constitution says nothing about the size of SCOTUS, and, in our history, the size of the Court had ranged from 4 to 10. The primary reason that the number has been 9 is because there are 9 federal districts.

    Interestingly, many conservatives in the last four years have talked about splitting the Ninth Circuit (the biggest circuit in terms of population and case load) into 2-3 districts. Should that happen, then an argument could be made to expand SCOTUS to 10 or 11 to reflect the number of court districts.

    Such an expansion would be perfectly constitutional.

  6. {{{had to go back to a paper I wrote to make sure I had my facts straight}}}

    As a Constitutional Scholar, Indeed Rod, history simply supports maintaining the current court size. You do understand it was originally 7 grew to 9 during the Civil War and has maintained that number since then. Democrats today are not talking about expanding the Court because of population growth (America is what 9-10-11 times bigger than it was in 1776-1778), but packing it because they are upset with its political composition. You are correct, the Constitution says very little about the judicial branch. Article 3, Section 1 states, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court." It does not say how many members the Court should have. A person committed to the plain text of the original Constitution might reasonably conclude that the Court can have any number of members (and since I am an originalist, I believe this). But there is a major problem with this thinking. A nine-justice Court isn't preserved in the Constitution; but neither is the right to an abortion, the right to same-sex marriage or a host of other thoughts of modern liberalism. Instead, the Supreme Court has found these rights implicit in the text, structure and history of the Constitution and with a heavy dose of modern policy arguments and politics. That is where the originalist and the modern thought often clash. I will reiterate, Democrats today are not talking about expanding the Court because of population growth, but packing it because they are upset with its political composition (s). It's a scary thought, Rod.

    Reality? Attacking Dr. Waddy over his thoughts, simply put, it seems to me if a democrat doesn't like a thought they simply cancel it out with an attack on a persons character. There are 70 million + folks who voted for Trump, so you mean to tell me they are all out of touch of reality? Sad, truly it is.

  7. Linda, 80 million people voted for Joe Biden and think the notion that there was enough fraud to overturn the result as absolutely delusional.

    I didn't attack Dr. Waddy. I congratulated him on his loyalty, esp. in light of the fact that the AG doesn't see fraud occurring, that the Trump team is 1-39 in court, and the government folks in charge of election security saw nothing along the lines of what the Trump team has claimed. Further, all 6 swing states have certified the vote counts, including two with GOP governors and 3 with GOP secretaries of state.

    There comes a time when the objective evidence is so overwhelming that continuing to believe otherwise is wishful thinking.

    As far as the Court, I have not yet gotten the memo that the Biden Administration is planning to "pack" the court. I do remember President-Elect Biden stating that he was planning to appoint a commission to examine reforming the federal court system to see if it can operate more effectively and efficiently.

    Perhaps that commission recommends breaking the Ninth Circuit into two or three circuits and to expand SCOTUS to 10 or 11. That would not be packing the Court for political reasons, but to have the federal system operate better. All perfectly constitutional, by the way.

    Understand, breaking up the Ninth Circuit has been an idea pushed by the GOP, not out of having the Ninth Circuit operate more efficiently and effectively, but because the GOP believed the Ninth Circuit was far too liberal, and should have been broken up for that reason alone.

  8. Thanks, Rod! Your admiration warms the cockles of my heart. Oh, wait -- I'm a Trumper. I don't have a heart. Never mind. :)

    Were Trump to lose, and were Trump to acknowledge that loss, you're right: I'd be darn chagrined. That's partly because I believe my own propaganda. That is, I'm not at all convinced that, if the good guys lose this election, we'll ever be permitted to compete in another.

    And I agree that expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court wouldn't be, in itself, unconstitutional. On the other hand, changing the number of justices so as to achieve the subordination of the judiciary to the other two branches of government would certainly be against the spirit of the constitution, as would setting up a system of elections that permits rampant and unchecked fraud.

    Linda, thanks for the constitutional primer. It seems we see eye to eye! But then we always do...

    Are 74 million Trumpers out of touch with reality? Not if you consider that election fraud is present in every election -- it's just a question of the extent of that fraud and whether it calls into question the outcome. Rod, I would love to know why believing in election fraud is unhinged, but believing that the President is a Russian sleeper agent is perfectly reasonable.

    Oh, Rod -- you would have us believe that court-packing has nothing to do with partisanship or ideology whatsoever??? Now who's delusional? Tsk tsk.

  9. Dr. Waddy, I don't recall ever saying that Trump was a Russian sleeper agent. Plus, understand what Mueller could investigate crimes for and what he did discover. He did not discover collusion with the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He did find plenty of instances where the Trump campaign and Russian actors communicated and coordinated.

    You obviously did not read what I said about the Ninth Circuit. Conservative critics wanted to break up the Ninth Circuit because they felt too many liberal decisions were coming out of the circuit. That's partisanship. If conservatives were to complain that dividing up the Ninth Circuit and matching the number of SCOTUS judges with the number of circuits, then they would be hypocrites.

  10. Oh dear. No collusion, but "communication". Yikes. I'm sure Hillary has never communicated with a Russian. She would never dream of it. She has her lawyers take care of all that.

    There's a flaw in that logic, Rod: conservatives never did break up the Ninth Circuit! Plus, I don't recall any conservative discussing packing SCOTUS even if they had broken up the Ninth Circuit. Court-packing is your baby -- not that this baby will ever leave the womb, thanks to Mitch McConnell and Joe Manchin.

  11. Dr. Waddy, Biden and Harris have far too much damage left by Trump to correct. But, it 2022, the PA Senate seat will flip with Toomey's retirement. Ron Johnson is incredibly vulnerable in WI, as is Burr in the increasingly purple NC. Finally, even if Loeffler manages to hold on to her Senate seat this time, she has to run again in 2022, which will be MUCH tougher. There are no vulnerable Dem Senators in 2022.

    So, there's a very good chance that if the Dems can't flip GA in January (it is now 50-50 they will as the GOP increasingly looks like they will pull a loss from the jaws of victory), they will have enough seats in 2022 that Manchin won't matter.


  12. Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: "Intent" is often a prime consideration in construction of statutes, legislative acts and case law and as an Act of Congress would accomplish a change in the number of Scotus justices, judicial review of it would very likely consider the history of such Acts. They fell into two categories of intent: administrative and partisan. FDR couldn't even swing his party's leadership to support his very partisan plan. Two successful partisan changes in the 19th century were quickly repudiated. Linda is right; most change came for administrative reasons because American geographical expansion necessitated the creation of additional Federal circuits, presided over by Scotus justices who actually rode circuit at one point. Yes, Federal circuit courts were created too but the presiding Justice to this days is still a Scotus Justice. This history arguably set a precedent endorsing administrative intent and discrediting partisan intent.

  13. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Present threats of Court packing are inarguably partisan. They are a frantic,shrill and self righteous overreach by such as Madame Pelosi who actually think a lawful Scotus is unjust because it denies the sanctity of their "feelings". They have in the past used Scotus to impose unlegislateable laws by fiat. But this Scotus recognizes the accumulated wisdom inherent in past decisions and in history - uh, yes, the rule of law! And this is anathema to the emotionally captured left and it's endorsement of momentarily fashionable pronunciamentos. There are no administrative reasons for change in the number of Justices.

  14. There is nothing more hypocritical on here than the folks who say that expanding the courts is a partisan process. There was never an act more partisan than not even having a confirmation vote on Merrick Garland in 2016. The second most partisan act was the flip by people such as Lindsey Graham who proclaimed he would not vote for a SCOTUS nominee in an election year, and then did so when presidential votes were actually being cast.

    So, please don't talk to me about Nancy Pelosi being partisan in any views she may have about expanding the number of seats on SCOTUS. You have NO credibility here.

    Finally, a little history. FDR was not able to get SOUTHERN Democrats (including his VP and rival, John Nance Garner) to go along with expanding the size of the court. That the Four Horsemen (supported by Justice Owen Roberts) who stood in the way of FDR's New Deal legislation were conservative is one thing. But, McReynolds and Van Devanter were virulent anti-Semites, and Sutherland and Butler were racist. Getting rid of them would be addition by subtraction for the society.

    The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 proposed to add a new SCOTUS justice for every present SCOTUS justice over the age of 70 years, 6 months. There would be a maximum of 6 such appointments. You know who else advocated appointing a younger justice to take precedence over an older justice who did not retire by 70? Justice James McReynolds back in 1914. Interesting irony.

  15. Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: Conservatives see in the Ninth Circuit strong leftist prejudice. Is there any accusation more serious than that of"prejudgements" which can be brought against JUDGES. Only the morally compromised left would see concern with judicial temperament and integrity as partisanship. Also, the California oriented circuit encompasses states which are the antithesis of California.
    would see a concern with the judicial temperament and integrity

  16. The Ninth Circuit includes CA, HI, OR, WA, NV, MT, ID, AZ and Alaska. CA, NV, HI, WA and OR are blue states and represent about 83-85% of the population in the circuit. AZ is a purple state. ID and MT are red states where no one lives, and Alaska is more libertarian than anything else. So, a liberal court is very much in the mainstream of the ideology of the people who live there;

    The Ninth Circuit is no more liberal than the 5th and 11th circuit are conservative.

    A better way of looking at circuits is how often they are reversed by SCOTUS. The 6th circuit (TN, KY, OH and MI), the 11th circuit GA, AL and FL) and 8th circuit (AR, MO, IA, NE, SD, ND and MN) are the most reversed and contain mostly conservative states.

  17. Rod, are you seriously forecasting the Senate results in 2022, when you so recently assured us that the Dems would control the Senate after 2020? I'm sure about one thing: the world will be radically different by 2022, so nothing much that we say here will be relevant.

    Jack is right: only leftists are proposing court-packing right now, because they want to advance the agenda of leftism! Any fool can perceive that. I think it's highly unlikely to happen, though, or even to be brought up for a vote. Rod is right that if the Dems took the Senate in 2022 (and if Trump ever makes way for Biden), court-packing MIGHT be back on the agenda, especially if the Supremes do their job in the next two years and roll back much of the judicial overreach of the past few decades.

    So some of the people against court-packing in 1937 were racists? Big deal. I'm sure some of the people who were for it were too. What does that prove?

    Was the decision to block Garland partisan? Sure! You bet. In many ways it was. Partisan and ideological. And thank heavens it worked! If it hadn't, SCOTUS would be captive to neo-Marxist judicial activism, and our democratic elections would be even more irrelevant than they are now (given the fact that the fix has always been in for Democrats).