Amy Coney Barrett

With all this talk of court packing, is it legal to "unpack" a court?

In other words, lets say Biden comes in and adds 4 justices to raise the total to 13. Can the next president come in & with Senate approval, undo his & the Senates action, reducing the court back to its previous 9?

If so, if that is legal, I would float it out as a way to negate the left from even trying.

So lets use the hypothetical that the Dems win the presidency & the Senate, at which time they pack the court, eliminate the filibuster and eliminate the electoral college, making it near impossible for the Dems to lose power for decades. Is there any reason to think that the conservative part of the country will just sit there and take that abuse?

Those actions by the Dems would be the first shot fired in another civil war, unless they allowed Texas and a handful of other states to peacefully secede from the union.

Think more along the lines of urban warfare, with IEDs and other types of fighting where a local militia is trying to discourage an infiltrating force with superior firepower.

If Texas & other states chose to secede, they wouldn't attack the White House.  Rather, they would just ignore the Federal government & set up their own.  It would then be up to the federal government to either let them go or use the military to try to force the state to follow federal leadership.  Considering how many of people in the military are conservative, such actions would not have the enthusiasm the Union army had (with the passion to stop slavery).  So you would get a half-hearted attempt by military personnel, many would defect and it would come down to whether or not the Democratic president was willing to drop bombs, including nukes, on American cities & states to force compliance.

If a state chose to secede and the US Government, led by a Democrat president & Democrat majorities in the Senate & House, wanted to stop such a succession, the fighting would be between the citizenry of the state (who agreed with the state governments decision to secede) and the US military.  The state government leadership would be on the defensive, trying to avoid being captured or killed by the US military and armed citizens would assist the state government by impeding the efforts of the US military.  You seem to be stuck in the paradigm of warfare between countries, with organized militaries, uniforms and rules.  This would not be that.  This would be an invasion by an organized military to try to capture or kill the leadership of a state government, who would run into resistance by a percentage of state citizens.

As far as dropping bombs, remember who we are dealing with on the left.  There have already been duly elected Democratic politicians who have said they would drop nukes against a resistance:

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@repswalwell

·

Nov 16, 2018

Replying to

@rambobiggs

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.

Do you really trust a President Kamala Harris, backed by Schumer & Pelosi, not to do something drastic to try to force Texas & a coalition of states to stay in the union?  Look at what Communist & Socialist leaders have done time & again over history in order to force compliance.  The Dems would not hesitate to do they same, they have the same ideology.

I'm sure Neville Chamberlain thought that the idea of Germany & Japan doing the things they ended up doing in WWII was "over the top".  History is littered with reasonable people expecting tyrants to be reasonable and being utterly  disappointed when wrong.

With all due respect to your historical knowledge of the Civil War, this would be more like the Russians & Afghanistan.  You would have a stronger military comprised of personnel who are not sold on the moral purpose of the orders being given to them going after scattered individuals who are passionate about their cause.  Further, the individuals they would be going after would be fellow Americans.  You would see a huge amount of desertion and traitorous acts against the military by personnel.  The firepower advantage is negated until in frustration, the military is used like a sledgehammer to swat a fly, i.e., bombings (nuke or conventional) that kill innocent civilians.

Look at the record of someone like Kamala Harris when she does have power - she is brutal.  The privilege & wealth increase the brutality because they believe they will lose it if they don't succeed.  They have had no empathy their entire lives, they are political animals and given the chance to rid the world of people they consider to be racist or bigots, they would not hesitate.

You are underestimating the depths of depravity the left will go to in order to achieve their goals and their lack of respect for human life.  To your defense, you aren't the first.

I agree they have weak convictions, but that only matters on the way to acquiring power. Once they have power, their lust for it appreciates exponentially and they will use it in any manner to get the things they want & to keep and expand that power. Their weakness leads to abuses of power that a stronger person would never consider. Their weakness, when combined with power, is the danger.

Harris would never visit the troops ala Lincoln, but she would have no qualms sitting in a comfy war room ordering them to drop bombs on a resistance.