There’s a way to prevent the Supreme Court from falling into more liberal hands should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, and we’ve got to start talking about it right now.
Since we lost Justice Scalia back in February, there’s been a panic among those who believe in the rule of law. The collective fear of Republicans over what a Hillary presidency would mean to the U.S. Supreme Court has overwhelmed the most faithful of conservatives.
“The rule of law will be finished,” say some who have built their livelihood around the practice of a law that threatens to be unrecognizable should one or two additional Democrats find their way onto the highest court of the land.
The loss of 2nd Amendment rights, an increase in abortion, a Godless society fueled by judicial activism, and seemingly frivolous lawsuits leading to the loss of the most basic of fundamental rights would likely get worse should Hillary-appointed judges reach the USSC.
Even now, the law has become so frail in defending common sense that the concept of which bathroom to enter has become a confused legal mess.
A complete loss of the Supreme Court could very well mean a complete loss of freedom and a United States Supreme Court appointment is the closest thing to permanence in government.
So there’s no undoing a bad appointment. Not a chance.
My very simple solution won’t be easy either, but more likely than defeating a liberal judge with a Democrat president.
Article III of the United States Constitution allows congress to set the number of seats on the Supreme Court.
In 1789, this was set at six justices.
In 1807, it was seven.
By 1863 it had grown to ten and by 1869 it was back to the nine that we know it to be today.
The only way to ensure the preservation of freedom is to demand that congress reduce the size of the court.
Ideally, it should be shrunk to seven, due to the likelihood of another justice retiring under a possible Hillary presidency. But to at least reduce the number by a single justice would ensure that no swift passage of anti-Constitutional activism should be allowed to breeze by the court without the possibility of being overturned.
Anyone hoping that Ted Cruz could finally make it to the White House in 2020 must take up this cause before judicial damage leaves very little for Cruz to be able to undo.
And anyone wishing to relieve the pressure on a possible President Trump to produce an “acceptable” justice for the establishment in congress should want this too.
This allows conservatives to realize that no matter who wins the presidency in 2016, there’s not going to be a panic over the next justice to the Supreme Court.
This should be debated and discussed during the final months of the 2016 election and we should demand our legislative leaders take up the cause. This could be our last hope.