Enraged Dems reintroduce Supreme Court Justice term limits after Texas abortion law ruling

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!

Democrats upset over the Supreme Court ruling to allow Texas’ heartbeat abortion law to remain in effect as the high court considers its constitutionality are reportedly plotting to undermine the court with legislation and investigations.

Reintroduced Thursday by Rep. Ro Khanna and three of his allies, including “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the Supreme Court Term Limits Act would impose a term limit on Supreme Court positions.

“The bill would establish 18-year term limits on any Supreme Court Justices approved after his bill’s passage. After their 18-year terms, justices would then be allowed to continue their service on lower courts,” according to a joint press release.

“Current justices would be exempt from the term limits. Going forward, the bill would then create a regular appointment process to allow every president to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court during each odd year, guaranteeing each president the opportunity to nominate two justices per four-year term,” the release adds.

The bill was originally introduced in 2020 but then re-upped this week over the Supreme Court issuing a ruling in defiance of the Democrat Party’s wishes.

For procedural reasons, the high court ruled Wednesday to allow Texas’ heartbeat abortion law to remain in effect as it considers its constitutionality.

The law, which went into effect Sept. 1, empowers citizens with the right to sue anyone who facilitates the abortion of a baby whose heartbeat has been detected. Heartbeats usually aren’t detected til the 5th or 6th week of pregnancy.

Ever since the law went into effect, hysterical Democrats and their media allies have acted as if Roe v. Wade is “essentially done” for. This is false.

This nevertheless hasn’t stopped Democrats from overreacting, both by re-upping this legislation and also — stunningly — initiating an investigation into the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court must operate with the highest regard for judicial integrity in order to earn the public’s trust. This anti-choice law is a devastating blow to Americans’ constitutional rights—and the Court allowed it to see the light of day without public deliberation or transparency,” Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Durbin announced in a statement Friday.

“At a time when public confidence in government institutions has greatly eroded, we must examine not just the constitutional impact of allowing the Texas law to take effect, but also the conservative Court’s abuse of the shadow docket,” he added.

This response follows a pattern of Democrats seeking to undermine democratic norms whenever they fail to get their way.

In recent years, Democrats have proposed abolishing the Second Amendment, abolishing the Senate, abolishing the filibuster, and packing the Supreme Court, among a slew of other radical ideas.

The far less radical idea of simply winning hearts and minds — and thus elections — by behaving sanely and proposing sane policies just doesn’t seem to occur to them.

In this case, they’re moving forward with radical plans in spite of predictions from experts that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule against the law.

Speaking on Newsmax this Thursday, Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz predicted that the law will be ruled “unconstitutional” because of how it operates. His thesis was that the law basically turns everyday citizens into abortion bounty hunters.

“The idea of giving individuals the right to enforce the law – what if Texas next passed a law saying that anybody had the right to prevent gay marriage? If any gay people get married you can sue them, and anybody who facilitated the gay marriage and collect $10,000? Or any black person who wants to vote, a white person can sue them?” he explained.

He predicted that “even conservative justices, certainly [John] Roberts and certainly, I think, [Brett] Kavanaugh will say that the mechanism that Texas has selected, forgetting about abortion, the mechanism that Texas has selected, allowing individual buttinskies, individual busybodies to say we don’t like what’s going in an abortion clinic,” is unconstitutional.

As noted earlier, the Supreme Court’s ruling was procedural only.

The law makes it possible for citizens to file suit against an abortion provider. Yet nobody has filed a lawsuit yet. For the Supreme Court to have issued a temporary injunction, someone would have had to have filed a suit first.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles