- - Friday, March 22, 2019

Remember back in high school when your basketball team lost more games than it won? It was no fun, not for the team, not for the fans, and not for the students. Remember how rather than switch coaches or improve team training your school instead simply changed the rules? Each time your team scored a basket they were awarded 4 points rather than the standard 2. Was the rule change fair? No. It did meet your needs, however. Your school won more games.

In my case, it was college. My dormitory put together an intramural softball team. We were terrible. We didn’t win a game all year. There were several games we didn’t score a run. The Law School team beat us 15-1. We could have practiced more. Some of my teammates could have imbibed fewer beers. But why endure those hardships?

Instead, we changed the rules. Every base we reached was worth one run for our team, meaning a single didn’t just give us a baserunner, it gave us one on the scoreboard. A double gave us two runs. If we had three men on base, it meant we had three runs.

AOC blames racism for lack of 'police in riot gear' at Virginia gun-rights rally
David Hogg mocks, insults Virginia gun-rights rallygoers: 'Put down the gun and pick up a book'
House impeachment will be a 'permanent stain' on Dems' legacy

Suddenly, we were competitive. Was it fair for us to change the standard for our own team to score? Of course not. But it did help our team, impact on the integrity of the game be damned.

Such is the world of politics in 2019.

Several Democrats, including presidential candidates, have suggested packing the Supreme Court. The law says the president nominates justices for the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. There are nine justices. “Packing” the court generally means increasing the overall number of Supreme Court justices so that the president gets to appoint extra people and thus impact the balance of the high court.

Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to do this. He wanted to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 15 and to appoint them himself. FDR was a Democrat at a time that the Dems controlled both the House and the Senate, yet his idea was soundly rejected. Why? An idea whose primary intent is to promote your own agenda or give yourself a decided advantage is always a bad idea.

Many would tell you the Supreme Court currently leans to the right of center by a 5-4 majority. This infuriates liberals, so much like getting 4 points for a basket — but only for your team — that packing the court is their answer. It’s neither reasonable nor fair, but so what?

If you want fair, look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court. Two justices were appointed by President Trump, two appointed by former President Barack Obama, two by former President George W. Bush, two justices from former President Bill Clinton and one by former President George H.W. Bush.

You couldn’t get more mathematically balanced if you tried. The breakdown clearly demonstrates the historic selection process for justices works, but some on the left apparently are more interested in getting their agenda accomplished than in maintaining the integrity of an institution.

Ironically, if Mr. Trump is re-elected, then those same Dems will run from the idea of packing the court, which tells you it isn’t really about needing more justices but rather a power grab.

Next, consider the Electoral College.

The United States of America is a union of states. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure every state had a proportional voice in the selection of our president and thus, the Electoral College. Without it, big states like California or New York would impose their will on little states like Kansas, Nebraska and Maine.

Twice in my lifetime, the presidential candidate with the most total national votes did not win the Electoral College. Both times, it was a Democrat that lost. Some 2020 presidential candidates are crying that the Electoral College isn’t fair and that every vote must count.

News flash: Every vote did count, but the Constitution says every state must count. Those that didn’t like the 2016 election result have a suggestion. Change the rules.

Several states, most recently Colorado, have said it will award the electoral votes from its state to the winner of the national popular vote — all in the name of “every vote must count.”

Think about that for a minute. If you live in Colorado and 65 percent of Colorado voters choose candidate A for president, but California and other big states push for candidate B, the will of two-thirds of Colorado voters will be ignored and their electoral votes will go for candidate B. In that case, if you live in Colorado, why vote at all? They have ceded their proportional voice to whatever the rest of the country says to do.

Absurd? Yes, it is. Just like 4 points for a basket or a run for every base touched but only for your team.

Changing the rules for the specific purpose of a select political outcome isn’t just unfair, it is a disaster.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide