Image 01 Image 03

Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices

Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices

As in the runup to the first Obamacare decision, Democrats hope that threats to the Court’s legitimacy can influence one or more of the conservative Justices, particularly Chief Justice Roberts.

It’s not like we didn’t see this coming.

Throughout the full frontal assault on Brett Kavanaugh, we warned that the goal of liberals was to delegitimize Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court:

This was not about getting to the truth.

It’s part of a pattern of unhinged Democrat Senators and their alt-left supporters trying to delegitimize Kavanaugh and a coming conservative Supreme Court.

We have seen this movie before.

The Electoral College did not help Democrats in 2016, even though in the past it often has helped Democrats because they normally have a lock on large electoral states. So Democrats then declared the Electoral College illegitimate, attempted to intimidate the Electors into altering their votes, and now continue the campaign against the Electoral College.

As predicted, Democrats are launching a campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court. The NY Times reports, Liberals Eye Far-Reaching Goal: Delegitimizing Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority:

“This confirmation vote will not necessarily be the last word on Brett Kavanaugh serving a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court,” said Brian Fallon, executive director of the liberal group Demand Justice and the top spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Facing a Supreme Court controlled by five solidly conservative justices, liberals have already started to attack the legitimacy of the majority bloc and discussed ways to eventually undo its power without waiting for one of its members to retire or die.

Some have gone as far as proposing — if Democrats were to retake control of Congress and the White House in 2020 or after — expanding the number of justices on the court to pack it with liberals or trying to impeach, remove and replace Justice Kavanaugh….

“The legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned,” former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. wrote on Twitter. “The court must now prove — through its work — that it is worthy of the nation’s trust.”

Part of this is a true attempt to strip the conservative majority of power through court packing, but that’s something of a pipe dream.

More likely, this is an attempt to intimidate the conservative justices into hesitating on decisions.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a weak link. There was a campaign to pressure him from Obama on down leading up to the first Obamacare decision. The media narrative was that the Court would lose its legitimacy if it threw out Obamacare. It seems to have worked, with Roberts casting the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare under Congress’ taxing authority. There were many reports that Roberts had changed his vote under this pressure, though there’s no way to verify that given Supreme Court secrecy.

So what we have here is an attempt to work the Refs going forward. Unfortunately, it might work. Roberts likely will assume the role of swing justice. Roberts likely will lobby against the Court taking hot button cases that could reverse precedent that is dear to liberals, particularly abortion.

What Democrats can’t control, they delegitimize and intimidate.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What does that even mean to delegitimize the Court? I mean that is not how legal decisions get their power. They don’t attain power through the reputation of the SC they get their power from the US Constitution and let’s not forget that the Left now only speaks to itself. It doesn’t have any readers or listeners that are influenced by the “respect” it gives anyone in this society and they have already taught their followers to respect nothing not under Progressive control. I think it is a nothing-burger.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Conan. | October 8, 2018 at 10:36 pm

    The Supreme Court has been being legitimized one Trump appointment at a time.

    Even liberal members of the Supreme Court are raising the issue of “respect” (i.e. following the rule of law) is the only reason their decisions have power. They may have the supposed power of law, but sheer force may defy them. Of course the more complex thinkers are saying, “…well under a Democratic Party president” but, who’s to say? It’s a suggestion that simply refusing the rule of law will invalidate a “conservative” ruling.

    So they claim. I’m not sure they’d appreciate how it would turn out in reality.

Check out Ginsburg in the accompanying photo. Trump will be getting 3!

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MarkS. | October 9, 2018 at 2:49 pm

    A SC replacement appointment Hillary will never get to make!


    DanJ1 in reply to MarkS. | October 9, 2018 at 3:18 pm

    RBG is a well known long-time racist having only had one black clerk in all her many years as a judge. I would put a comment bubble above her saying, “Why the hell do I always get stuck sitting next to that black guy? Good thing I wore these gloves in case I accidentally touch him.”

Don’t forget the rumors that a sympathetic justice was leaking info on the deliberations to Obama, which prolly led to his very public statements on how the Obamacare case should be decided. Lo and behold, Roberts did most likely change his mind

One of the old reporters, probably dead now, told a story about how JFK wanted to get rid of the electoral college, but was told by his advisers that as things stood, it was an advantage to Democrats … so he let it go.

I caught one posting (I’m not sure if this is real) claiming that Justice Kagen was questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. If she did, perhaps she should resign.

    CincyJan in reply to Neo. | October 8, 2018 at 10:20 pm

    Both Kagan & Sotomayer were someplace together and each one lamented the loss of the Kennedy swing vote. Each said a divisive court will appear too political. (They phrased that better.) It apparently did not occur to either one to moderate their own opinions in the interest of the court’s dignity.

      What do anyone expect from two leftist hacks like kagan (never even a judge) and sotomeyer (overturned SIXTY PERCENT of the time?)

      zennyfan in reply to CincyJan. | October 9, 2018 at 9:17 am

      It also did not occur to the Wise Latina™️ that by decrying there is no center, she was outing her side as political, as well. The left doesn’t see its lockstep votes as being partisan, though.

DouglasJBender | October 8, 2018 at 10:20 pm

Aren’t the Dems also talking about the Constitution itself being illegitimate?

JusticeDelivered | October 8, 2018 at 10:26 pm

“The legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned,” former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. wrote on Twitter”

Obama’s and Holder’s conduct was illegitimate. In fact, their conduct helped propel Trump into office. Both deserve credit for making Trump possible.

JusticeDelivered | October 8, 2018 at 10:26 pm

“The legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned,” former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. wrote on Twitter”

Obama’s and Holder’s conduct was illegitimate. In fact, their conduct helped propel Trump into office. Both deserve credit for making Trump possible.

Democrats want to deligitimize anything they can’t control. But now they’re stuck in the position of deligitimizing the thing they love the most – the Fed’l govm’t.

Let ’em say the SC illegitimate all they want … but IF any state ever acts on that in defiance, cut off Federal funding … they’ll come around I reckon …

What’s the “bag lady” doing with gloves on her hands?

    C. Lashown in reply to NotKennedy. | October 9, 2018 at 9:31 am

    As you get older there is a problem with maintaining body heat, hence constantly feeling cold. This skinny old husk is feeling the curse of old age and understands her journey is almost over.

The Friendly Grizzly | October 8, 2018 at 11:21 pm

NotKennedy: I looked at the picture and I wonder: do they make gloves that do the same thing as SuppHose support stockings to help with circulation issues?

I’m skeptical that Roberts’s failings are due to Leftoid machinations. I suspect he’s managing to fail all on his own. As for why, I can only speculate. I suspect he’s suffering from a similar delusion to that of the Leftoids—that his job is managing results rather than sorting out law. Obviously, he’s wrong—questions of national policy are not for the courts, they’re for those elected by, and responsible to, the voters.

    Close The Fed in reply to tom_swift. | October 9, 2018 at 7:29 am

    Roberts was chosen by Bush II. Bush isn’t, wasn’t, exactly an ally of normal Americans, though he could act like one. I didn’t read any Roberts decisions when he was nominated, but afterwards I read he helped homosexuals in some midwestern state work for homosexual marriage, I think it was.

    Roberts isn’t a conservative, he was just packaged that way. Just like one of Obama’s judicial picks dressed conservatively with pearls when in fact she was a rabid leftist whose attire in her faculty photo totally gave her away.

    Roberts = Bush. That is all you need to know.

Roberts concerns me most of the so called right wing of the court. It just seems so off when you look at his decision on Obamacare and how the dissenting opinion looked and read like a majority opinion, with Roberts being the fly in the ointment which changed the law as it had been presented into a tax.

Scalia seemed livid about it.

If Roberts was co opted in some manner to change his decision, it stands to reason he will be used that way again. The leverage against him would still stand.

That is why having RBG gone would become very helpful. Roberts “changing his mind” wouldn’t be a factor.

I can see the left looking to stack the court. FDR wanted to so his New Deal wouldn’t be defeated by the SCOTUS. (That tells you how poor that “deal” was.)

    And seeing just how far out of bounds the Left was willing to go to land cheap shots on Kavanaugh, it’s highly plausible they would be willing to blackmail a sitting justice.

    Turn the screws on Ginsburg. Spotlight her deteriorating mental condition, put impeachment on the table. The extra scrutiny will use up whatever physical reserves she has left.

    puhiawa in reply to oldgoat36. | October 9, 2018 at 2:46 am

    Law Review praises have always driven the court left. The Justices and appellate judges become addicted.

“Illegitimacy” is a dead end argument anyway.

So you think SCOTUS is not legitimate? Fine. Then you won’t mind if they expand gun rights, expand religious liberty, limit abortion.

What? Why are you writing op-eds about those decisions? Why are you mobilizing protesters? Because if you truly believe the court is not a legitimate adjudicator, why bother opposing its decisions?

The Dem strategy is like boycotting a council meeting only to realize the only effect is that you’ve taken yourself off the playing field. And left a hole in your defense.

The Left is both insane and stupid, but even they will figure this out on their own. Eventually.

    MajorWood in reply to Fen. | October 9, 2018 at 10:36 am

    It really wouldn’t be expanding gun rights, as the 2nd is all the gun rights that we need. What it would do is remove gun restrictions, and New Jersey, as we know it, would cease to exist. The point is to tell .gov to stop doing what it shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

Trump: Democrats have been talking about expanding the Supreme Court to 15 seats. I think that’s a great idea. Here are my 6 nominations.

Democrats: OMG

Trump: What? You’ve been saying SCOTUS is illegitimate anyway.

Americanism v Communism.

    Worse: it’s Americanism versus Soviet-style corrupt elitism.

    How else could people like the leftist hacks infesting our government make a lot of money? Surely not in the private sector?

If the GOP gains more seats and RBG goes, I suggest Trump nominate Palin.

    Close The Fed in reply to Andy. | October 9, 2018 at 7:33 am

    Respectfully disagree, Andy. We need someone who understands the law who can make decisions with legal arguments which others in the legal profession can defend and follow.

    I understand why people dislike lawyers, but at the same time, if you don’t know the rule book and you play football with someone that does, you’re gonna lose.

    Also, about Roberts, Harry Reid didn’t object to him. That tells you a lot.

There is only ONE side that want political consideration in judicial rulings, and it’s not the R’s! The Conservatives want the laws to be held up to the Constitution as to their validity. It is to be interpreted as written, not made up as you go. Situational morality need not apply.

Roberts has been a disappointment. I continue to hold my breath about his opinions.

Which is exactly why I’m not jumping up and down with Fuzzy over Kavanaugh. First, we’re celebrating a confirmation that never should have been in question to begin with. But more importantly, we won’t really know Kavanaugh’s true judicial character until a few decisions on controversial issues come down.

I remember the Robert’s hearings. The NRO crowd assured us he was the best thing since sliced bread.

    Close The Fed in reply to Fen. | October 9, 2018 at 9:14 am

    Yeah, and thanks to Kevin Williamson and Trump, we all know now that the NRO crowd just loves being 2nd fiddle to the left.

      Yup. I cant believe I used to read them on a daily basis. Now, never.

      Its amazing how Trump has unmasked all the traitors and weak sisters in the GOP. No wonder we couldn’t get anything done.

        Close The Fed in reply to Fen. | October 9, 2018 at 9:45 am

        I used to read them every day too, but after that Kevin Williamson article, no more.

        Trump hasn’t unmasked them all, but many. The Turtle is still out there triumphantly killing off true believers in conservatism like Roy Moore and others, and the press doesn’t call him on it because they’re totally supportive.

        Every time that asshat declares some non-GOPe primary candidate “unelectable,” he helps another candidate in that primary and his help gets them over the hump. Sickens me. Just glad he didn’t have the Dave Brat race on his radar or Dave Brat would never have made it.

    Arminius in reply to Fen. | October 9, 2018 at 2:49 pm

    What are you talking about? Kavanaugh has been on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for twelve years now. We already know his judicial temperament. He’s no conservative, nor a strict constructionist, or a rock ribbed textualist; before the Obamacare went to the SCOTUS Kavanaugh had already decided the penalty was in fact a tax and therefore constitutional. Roberts essentially lifted the argument from Kavanaugh’s decision.

    Kavanaugh is no Scalia. He’ll get things right most of the time but he’ll make a lot of decisions based upon reasoning that is weak.

      No, you really cant be sure.about their temperament until after they are seated on SCOTUS. Yes, lower court opinions are useful indicators, but they are also biased because every judge knows that his rulings will be used as a litmus test for the next short list.

        Fen in reply to Fen. | October 9, 2018 at 7:22 pm

        I’m arguing that he’s going to be weaker than you think.

        Arminius in reply to Fen. | October 10, 2018 at 10:40 am

        I’ll stick with the “useful indicator” that is Kavanaugh’s judicial record. You go with your magic eight ball, Fen.

        You’re amusing, Fen. For some reason you imagine that I believe Kavanaugh is going to be the second coming of Antonin Scalia when I wrote that he is no Scalia. I also wrote that he’s no conservative, nor a strict textuaist, nor a strict originalist. And I also pointed out that when he was on the D.C. Circuit he wrote in his decision that the Obamacare penalty needed to be construed as a tax. Hence my observation that he’s no strict textualist since the way the law is written it’s a penalty and not a tax. textualists don’t rewrite laws in their heads, they stick to words on the pages of the Constitution and the statutes before them. All Roberts did was essentially plagiarize what Kavanaugh had already written.

        Does your magic eight ball tell you how solid or how weak I expect Kavanaugh to be? Apparently not. Your magic eight ball isn’t working. How the hell can you say he’s going to be weaker than I think when neither you or your magic eight ball have demonstrated you’re not mind readers. You have no clue what I think.

I wonder about the thinking here. The Democrats are trying to overcome Trump “popularism” with their own illiberal SJW narrative. Everything they do is about obtaining electoral power. Once in power, they can put more Progressive judges on the Supreme Court. They can only do this however, if they keep at least 45% of the people in general agreement. They work their psych ops 24/7 through media. They have delegitimized every branch of government which they don’t control, which would be three.

As I said a month ago here, repressed memories and believing them is one way to fool a polygraph. Making notes of notes seems like a plan to retain patient client privilege. Accusing any opposition to Ford’s credibility is cast by MSMS and the DNC as victimizing “all women”. This was all thought out, except the consequences.

Isn’t it obvious the depth of the coup? I am a Liberal, for the record, but yes, its obvious more so the Liberal.

The moment it dawned on our esteemed Obama Intelligence heads that Trump might win the Republican Primary, they began a conspiracy to stop Trump. Since this was illegal, it was very important to make the entire effort really about Trump making some “deal” with Putin. A nuke was going to go off, law be damned. What better way to shield the Obama administration’s former collusion with Putin AND efforts to stop Trump with a meme of Trumpian Treason? Its so obvious.

I will spare everyone the evidence. Just follow the story about Magnitsky and you can see where the Russian lawyer, Halper, Fusion GPS, Brennan, Davis, Steele, and all the pieces fall into a Deep State/DNC conspiracy that has failed to prove any conspiracy between Trump and Putin, but has diverted attention for almost two years from the greater truth. That was a large part of the plan.

Some here wonder about the future of SCOTUS and what Democrats are planning. The danger however, is this Democrat scripted hit show diverts attention ironically from the one that’s brewing internationally. Its extremely important it involves Putin. Just a note before going further:

Ukraine and NATO’s demise is very important to Putin. His Syrian bases are very important to his expansion. He has demonstrated the capacity to secretly alter GPS

The energy map is clear is we add all that massive new reserves from Bahrain to Egypt, Israel and Cyprus. Connecting lines that avoid Syria spell doom for rising prices and Putin’s ruble.

Putin is deploying new hypersonic missiles targeting our ships, satellites and bombers in order to create a new electronic curtain marking his hegemony

Putin has deployed EW and air defense that Robert gates promised America we would never face as he ended the Raptor program

Putin is deploying new assets in Syria Crimea and around Ukraine note the use of EW

Putin puts weapons in space (and we have the X-47b at work…)

Western arms control groups appear to be sympathetic to Putin Why has our “Liberal arms control groups” failed to peep?

Putin’s space program head cries about Musk’s rocket dumping:)

So it seems that the American Press with few exceptions, is filtering out the Putin news as he continues to do what he is planning. That’s obvious too.

If Gulf and Eastern Med oil and gas won’t go through Syria, but instead dared to run other lines to supply Europe he will move on to Libya and continue his westernization and electronic curtain in the Eastern Med exposing the entire southern flank of Europe, the result of Obama’s policy on Libya and its aftermath. Putin will be the deal maker.

Trump virtually alone with his partners at the DOD are defending the line. He more than any other Western leader is defending the Eastern and Southern flank of NATO as Germany continues to talk about an alliance without the US.

Trump begins to counter the Russian efforts

He is moving quickly on Hypersonics

He is pressing for the military to finish the job that requires many parts to work reliably and at an affordable cost.

I can post many things that show we are moving rapidly in the last two years to undo the sequestering of the very things we need to counter the efforts of Putin and Xi. Trump has directed Mattis to make things happen, including if need be, dead Russian mercs.

More than even the Supreme Court, the Democrats have decided our NSS and the defense of Liberal democracy is delegitimate. Max Boot has criminalized diplomacy while undermining national interest at every turn.

Vote as if the life of our nation is at stake. It is.


The Republicans made a bad error in not launching a campaign for impeachment of Ginsberg when she made her public political comments during the election. One of the retired Appeals Court justices did so in the Wall Street but that was never really pushed.
Another possibility–that has ample precedents–is for the Chief Justice after consultation with
his brethren to ask a senile justice who could no longer keep up with his duties to resign. Of course those were the days when justices wrote their own opinions–now they have clerks to do it.So Thurgood Marshall was free to spend his days watching television. And in any event, I doubt Roberts would have the backbone

“There were many reports that Roberts had changed his vote under this pressure, though there’s no way to verify that given Supreme Court secrecy.”

I recall reading in online news sources at the time that this awful opinion was handed down, that Justice Kennedy — to his credit — furiously lobbied Roberts to come back to the fold, Robert apparently having changed his vote at the last minute, in what appeared rather transparently to be a kowtowing sop to Obama’s threat that SCOTUS would allegedly lose legitimacy if it dared to strike down Obamacare. That threat apparently planted a seed of fear in Roberts’s mind, as it is widely known that he is concerned — understandably — with the public’s perception of the Court’s legitimacy. But, never should a Justice’s concern about the public image of the Court dictate his/her decisionmaking in a case, which is what seems to have happened, here, to Roberts’s everlasting discredit.