There are many people who follow various political party lines – some with real conviction, some with trepidation.

When our political system operates as a duality based on receiving funds to run for office, there is little chance for 3rd party or independent politicians to get elected (without their own funds, or a patron donor) Now, because of this, we live in a political world where people will make statements that seem contrary to the public view. Justification for the statements, based on core political party philosophy, are made which may conflict with public perceptions.

Case in point – The present Democratic party is attempting to enhance their control over government by adding numbers that favor their philosophy. The approach is to increase House and Senate elected representatives by adding States to the Union (Washington DC, and Puerto Rico), and increase the number of Supreme Court Justices from 9 to 13. (Question?: Are the sitting Supreme Court Justices stating they have too much work and need more Justices to get work done?)

These short term fixes will provide a long term majority for the Democratic Party. Even though, there were many years in the past 100 where Democrats had control over the Senate, House, and Presidency. It was 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the United States – but this was done for global policies of expansion and continuation of the Manifest Destiny of the United States – not internal political votes.

Yet read the conflicting philosophical jargon coming from the Democratic Leadership: “I hope that the filibuster is jettisoned,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Wednesday. “It is not a democratic principle that a minority can … stop the majority.”

It would seem this is contrary to many Democratic Principles of helping those who are unable to help themselves. That no majority should be able to inflict harm to any minority. etc. If Rep Hoyer really did believe what he said – there would be MANY laws reversed which are designed to protect minorities.

Now – for supreme court packing – this is very similar to 1937 when Roosevelt proposed adding Supreme Court Justices. Following the great depression, Roosevelt had many programs that were designed to help the poorest in society get jobs and work. But, the Supreme court rejected many of Roosevelts programs. So, he wanted to pack the court with Justices favorable to his programs.

Today, we have exited the worst global economic depression, yet today there are many social programs that are designed to protect the most vulnerable members of society. (Roosevelt’s influence had much to do with many of these programs being created over the past 100 years) Still the Democratic party wants more and stronger control over many parts of our society to guarantee future votes. (Dependency on Government is a way to control future voting)

So, we see a new effort towards Court Packing – to find ways to guarantee the Democrats have a free-for-all in developing socialist liberal programs. (Remember your high school lessons on Checks and Balances in Government?) Even with Congress and the White House “controlled” by one political party – the Check on the Democrat’s ability to develop programs which take advantage of minorities is the Supreme Court.

Just remember – a minority is a group that does not have the ability to protect themselves from the force of the majority. Classification of a minority may be based on many variables – including economic status.

So – as Hoyer states – the democratic philosophy of majority over minority should be upheld – and yet it all depends on which minority is being included/excluded. The Supreme Court has upheld many instances where a “Minority” was unable to help themselves and thus, should be protected. This is the reason for the checks and balances – so no philosophy may control all 3 government entities and abuse their power over minorities. And – if there are only 5-10% of the US population within a specific segment of society – then I would say that is a minority. And minorities should be protected from the power of a Majority.

Which is a reason we still have States and State’s Rights – so a large State such as California is not able to use their powerful voting Majority to overrule another State such as Georgia. (No matter how it is perceived in the “Entertainment Media”)

Just remember – A country is valued by how they treat their own citizens and mistreating a minority is not respected around the world. Isn’t the 18.6% of American citizens with household incomes above $150,000 a Minority? Note: According to the US Census estimate for 2020, there are 128,453,000 households – that means 23,892,000 households with incomes over $150,000. The “American Rescue Plan Act” estimated that 160 Million checks would be issued. This means 105 Million households will have been provided checks of $1,400, $2,800(married) and up to $4,600 depending on number of dependents) (Some households received much more as there are multiple people in a household, and multiple dependents) (For example the last round has sent out more than 160 Million checks.) Assuming the 105 million households are receiving checks – and the other 24 Million do not – but will be paying the taxes to cover the costs – this means of the roughly $850 Billion in stimulus checks equates to $35,416 per household not receiving checks. Thus, I would have to say that the majority is taking advantage of the Minority. But, according to Hoyer – that is how it should be!

Sources: https://www.cnbc.com/…/why-some-are-making-the-case-for…https://www.statista.com/…/number-of-households-in-the-us/https://www.statista.com/…/percentage-distribution-of…/https://www.history.com/…/franklin-roosevelt-tried…https://www.foxnews.com/…/house-democrats-dc-statehood…