Maine Democrat Graham Platner, a candidate for the U.
S. Senate, has once again found himself at the center of controversy. Known for his past inflammatory remarks and a scandal involving a Nazi tattoo, Platner has now openly declared his communist beliefs.
His recent comments have sparked further debate, as he was recorded advocating for significant changes to the Supreme Court's structure and composition.
According to the Gateway Pundit, Platner was captured on tape expressing his desire for the Democratic Party to regain control of the Senate with the aim of "stacking" the Supreme Court. He also suggested the impeachment of two sitting justices, a move that appears to target conservative members of the Court.
"Were going to have to start treating the Supreme Court like the political action wing that it has become of conservatism," Platner stated during a meeting with Somerset County Democrats in Skowhegan, Maine. He further elaborated, "It is not functioning as a constitutional body."
Platner's radical stance raises questions about his suitability for the U.S. Senate. His call to "stack the Court" and his belief in the Senate's power to rewrite its own rules reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government. "I firmly believe if we held Supreme Court justices to the same standard that we hold other federal judges, theres a compelling case for the impeachment and removal of at least two justices," he continued.
Platner's remarks underscore a broader frustration with some Senate Democrats whom he perceives as unaware of their potential influence. "If we retake the Senate, get the majorityfingers crossedwe need to use every single lever of power that we have to deal with the Supreme Court," he asserted.
Platner's comments suggest a willingness to undermine the judiciary's independence, a cornerstone of American democracy. His approach raises concerns about the potential consequences of politicizing the Court further. If the Supreme Court were to intervene in legislative matters, Platner's reaction would likely be one of outrage.
His proposals, therefore, highlight a troubling inconsistency in his understanding of the separation of powers. As the debate over the judiciary's role continues, Platner's controversial views serve as a reminder of the importance of maintaining the balance between the branches of government.
Login