Obama’s Supreme Court Tactics Were Dismal At Best!

[Below is a Facebook post I wrote seven years ago. It showed up today under Facebook Memories.]

Image for post
Image for post

April 2, 2012 at 4:13 PM ·

I think Obama, immediately upon being elected, should have taken a play from Republicans and made a move similar to how the GOP originally misused executive appointments when Congress was out of session, and, to a large degree, how those past Republican presidents placed our nation at war without approval from Congress, etc.

Obama should have had the Democratically-controlled House and Senate expand the number of members on the Supreme Court from nine to 11, in such manner that the next president elected (or should Obama be re-elected) would make those appointments.

The foresight should have existed among Democrats that the Republicans would provide nothing in compromise for the sake of legislation for people, and that they would fight tooth and nail while blocking everything into the courts where Republican presidential appointments to the federal bench presently outnumber Democratic appointments by ca. 1,200 to 700. Will mainstream media tell you this?

Republicans have held the presidency for way too long and have, in modern times, appointed way too many GOPwinger hacks to lead all the departments of government, and those hacks trickling down even more GOPwinger-like appointments. Can anyone say FEMA and Katrina?

Republicans never care about rules, or ever really cared about morality, when it comes time to electing the president of the United States. The GOPwinger game plan has been and is to win at all costs, even if it comes to using their own court appointments if necessary. Can anyone say Bush v. Gore or Citizens United?


Michael Weddle — December 1, 2016

Using his constitutional appointing authority, President Obama should place his Supreme Court Justice choice, Merrick Garland, onto the Supreme Court.

About nine months ago Obama nominated Garland, and the Senate declined to provide him a hearing for to even consider its consent. Traditionally, the Senate has a constitutional right to provide consent to a Supreme Court presidential appointment. However, a strong legal argument can be made that if the Senate declines its right to consider issuing its consent, Obama does not forfeit his constitutional right to appoint.

Garland should then be sworn onto the Court.

The precise moment after Garland is sworn onto the Court, a favorable party should immediately file a challenge to block the legality of Garland’s being sworn onto the Court. This filing should take place in the US District Court of Columbia, which presently is packed with Obama favorable judges. The DC District Court likely, given the Senate’s obvious and clear negligence, will then rule in Obama’s favor.

Written by

Founder of Climate Change Band; former NH State Rep; Supporter of Bernie Sanders & Standing Rock!

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store