This is bad even in the rotten “Jeopardy!”category of “Bills that can’t possibly be passed and that will probably be over-turned as unconstitutional anyway.”

A witch’s brew of some of the most unethical and incompetent members of the U.S. Senate ( Senator Cory “I am Spatracus” Booker, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sensator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), easily the dumbest member of the Senate, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) have entered a court-packing bill allowing the President to appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before the law would limit his or her authority to only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases,” a smaller subset under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The Hill explains the alleged reasons for the proposed law as “ongoing concerns over court ethics and its increasingly conservative makeup.” The ethics issue wouldn’t be addressed by the law at all, and “its increasingly conservative makeup” is at once over-stated and not a valid justification for weakening the Court. Head dolt Booker made this inadvertently clear in his statement, as Democrats want to hamstring this Court because they don’t like its decisions:

“The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy that is exacerbated by radical decisions at odds with established legal precedent, ethical lapses of sitting justices, and politicization of the confirmation process. This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

(Which party politicized the confirmation process beyond repair, Sparty? Which party has pursued the tactic of dredging up dubious accusers to smear nominees with unproven allegations?)

Whitehouse—boy, this guy is awful—added,

“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people. Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence.”

Only ill-informed ignoramuses who don’t comprehend what the Court does and who have never read an opinion in their lives could fall for that despicable propaganda.

Declaring that abortion is not protected under the Constitution and is not a federal matter is not a “radical decision.” The case it overturned, the product of a court that was far more liberal than this one is conservative, was reponsible for Roe v. Wade. Holding that racial discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights laws and the Constitution is racial discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights laws and the Constitution isn’t “radical” either. To “by any means necessary” progressives like Booker, whatever doesn’t advance their agenda is evil and must be wiped from existence or bent to their will. That any Democrat would make the fatuous “out of step” with the American people is a defiance of ethics estoppel principles: the Warren Court handed down ruling after ruling that a majority of the American public opposed, like Brown v. Bd of Education. The Court—duh!—is not a democratic institution.

Sure, SCOTUS’s popularity has declined, mostly because progressives and their captive media have set out to tear it down, knowing that the Court is an obstacle to their designs on free speech, due process, equality, fair elections and the right to bear arms.

Never mind, though: Democrats know the bill is a nonstarter. It’s a sure thing that the monster would be filibustered to death, and even if it passed by some miracle, the Supreme Court would be likely to find it unconstitutional anyway. (There’s that little matter of the comma in Article III, Section I’s statement that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Justice Alito has already said that he doesn’t believe Congress has the power to impose term limits, and while I can’t say I agree with him, I can say that the other justices have a strong incentive to follow his lead.

This is a bill intended to bash the Court and make abortion and affirmative action fans happy.