ACB Freak Out: Dem Senator Calls For PACKING THE COURTS And Ending Filibuster

( Democratic lawmakers are freaking out over the legitimate nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett by President Donald Trump – so much so, that they’re willing to use any measure possible to reverse any conservative influence on the courts and make it easier to pass far-left policy agendas.

Just hours before President Donald Trump officially announced that he has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senator Ed Markey suggested Democrats should fundamentally change how the courts and Congress work.

The Democratic Massachusetts Senator argued that Democrats should end the Senate filibuster, and increase the number of judges on the Supreme Court. It goes against decades of institutional norms and conventions and would make the court more partisan than ever. While the Constitution does not specify how many judges should be on the Supreme Court, increasing the number of judges has never been widely popular because every new president may just take the same action…until the court has dozens of judges.

Markey made it clear that he advocated the policies not because he believes they would be good, but because he doesn’t like Republicans getting their own way.

“If Republicans confirm Judge Barrett, end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court,” he said in a tweet.

Does Senator Markey not realize that the American people voted for President Donald Trump and elected the Senate Republican majority?

The suggestion is more radical than it sounds, given that the Senate filibuster is a system that allows lawmakers to stop legislation, or an upcoming vote, that doesn’t have the support of three-fifths of the Senate. It is designed to ensure that hugely partisan laws cannot be passed with tiny majorities, but it’s something the Democrats have had in their targets for some time now. Former President Barack Obama slammed the Senate filibuster as a “Jim Crow” relic.

Just like the number of judges on the Supreme Court, the Senate filibuster isn’t enshrined in the Constitution. That means it could technically change, but there’s a reason why it’s been this way since the early 19th Century.

It looks like the November presidential election could well be a choice between sensible governance with checks and balances, or upending the entire system in favor of far-left partisanship.