Democrat Senators Threaten to ‘Restructure’ Supreme Court if Second Amendment Ruling Goes Against Them

supreme court chief justice John Roberts, Jr.

Supreme Court Chief Justice of the U.S. John G. Roberts Jr. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via AP, Pool)

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

That’s the “friendly” warning message that was sent by five Senate Democrats in a brief filed in the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v City of New York.

As Fox News notes . . .

Dramatic changes to the Supreme Court have been proposed by several Democrats vying for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination, with “court-packing” being a common — though highly controversial — suggestion. Increasing the number of justices on the court would allow the president to shift the balance on the bench by loading up justices of his or her preference.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

Read the full brief here.

Today, fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics” (up five percent from last year); fifty-nine percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”; and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”

To our ears, the warning smacked of desperation, a weak, last-ditch effort to possibly affect the outcome of a case that could have seismic implications if it goes against the forces of gun control.

To get a more informed opinion, TTAG talked to two attorneys who practice at the federal level and agreed to comment anonymously. They said . . .

This amicus brief was written for an audience of one.

They know that Chief Justice Roberts is a cowardly weakling who is susceptible to this kind of pressure (word is that he caved and changed his vote shortly before the Obamacare decision came out, after Obama engaged in some similar saber-rattling). And of course his concurrence in the case on Auer deference was a textbook example of his cowardice behind a mask of appearing “judicial.”

One can only hope that Roberts is smart enough to recognize that if he keeps caving to this kind of pressure, he’ll just encourage more of it, to the lasting injury to the Court.

Funny how none of these folks were decrying the pressing need for “consensus” when the 5-4 decisions were going the other way.

When we expressed concern over another 4-4-1-style, split the baby result here, they replied . . .

One can hope that Kavanaugh — who recent history shows is clearly NOT a coward — can stiffen his spine.

One “Robertsesque” move I see him doing would be to immediately grant cert in another Second Amendment test case, and schedule it for oral argument at the same time as NYSR&PA.That way, Roberts could throw a sop to one crowd by finding NYSR&PA moot, while also instituting strict scrutiny thru the other case so that he doesn’t look like he’s caving to public pressure.

Of course, setting the precedent that you can evade SCOTUS review by making cosmetic changes to a law after a cert grant would be incredibly corrosive.

Hold onto your seats.

 

comments

  1. avatar PK says:

    Good god, the whole work has gone insane.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      This is simply because the entire Fed Gov is operating under the mistaken belief that SCOTUS has any control, and that we have three “separate but equal” branches. We do not.

      Repeat. We do not.

      Article I of the Constitution is the most lengthy, and outlines how our bicameral Congress functions. The House was originally meant to represent the people, and the Senate was originally formed to represent the States to provide balance against the central Federal Gov. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment changed that paradigm, and destroyed this balance.

      Article II is shorter, and outlines the Executive, which is charged with enforcing the laws passed by Congress.

      Article III is very short, and refers to the Federal Judiciary. The Founders only made it a requirement that a Federal judiciary be formed; they left it up to Congress to define the structure. It is a fallacy that Supreme Justices are appointed for life. They are appointed at Congress’ pleasure, and may be removed for poor conduct (such as RBG’s inflammatory statements against a sitting president).

      Now, class, continue to follow me…

      Many alleged “Constitutional scholars” point to Marbury v. Madison (1803) as proof that SCOTUS has the power to knock down anything the other two branches do. This false, as the Court simply made the decision to give itself that power. It is NOT Constitutionally sound, as Congress created SCOTUS (and can change it at any time if it wishes), and the creature cannot ever be more powerful than its Creator. This is like a teenager telling his parent what to do, and the parent obeying. As time passes, the teenager becomes more emboldened and tells everyone else he’s their equal, and the parent forgets how to run the household under the normal hierarchy.

      In fact, the judicial branch was never originally expected to hold any power, other than to provide its opinions to Congress:

      ****
      “[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
      — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78
      ****

      Our “swamp” is out of control because:

      1) The 17th Amendment destroyed the balance between the States and the Federal Gov.,
      2) Congress didn’t put SCOTUS back into its place after Marbury v. Madison,
      3) The Executive has created numerous agencies that now rule our daily lives by diktat (color of law). This is unlawful under the Constitution, and Congress has abrogated its duty to retain control of the lawmaking. This was one of the 27 complaints listed in our Declaration of Independence, and now we’ve re-created it!:

      “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers
      to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

      1. avatar Victor Gore Chamoun says:

        These imbecile demorat/narcissistic creatures have really gone off the deep end if they think they could pull this coup off! They have gone past delusional into the outer limits of sanity.

      2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

        I Haz A Question – you are one of the few people who actually understand the separation and distribution of powers.
        How did you avoid the brainwashing of US education?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I’m not anything special. I’ve simply read the founding documents and studied Original Intent from the comfort of my home via books and the Interwebz. Anyone can do it, as it seems you have also.

          If only 10% of our population properly understood civics, this nation would be transformed beginning with the very next election.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If only 10% of our population properly understood civics, this nation would be transformed beginning with the very next election.”

          I think the vast majority of voters actually understand the constitution sufficiently, and find it boring, cumbersome, inconvenient and an impediment to “doing the right thing”. They are quite happy to ignore the founding documents in return for personal comfort and convenience (note all the calls to completely ignore immigration laws, and just open the country to anyone who wants to walk in).

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “If only 10% of our population properly understood civics,…”

          If the Leftists allowed that, the students would question the need or wisdom of an almighty state…

        4. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

          I Haz A Question – Ditto. Didn’t learn jack in law school. “Balancing tests” made no sense. Went back and read the founding documents, etc. and figured it out. Damn Scalia got us in a bind with his “common use” crap. Have You read Tench Coxe’s letters in support of the 2A and Bill of Rights? “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans. As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize,…”

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Have You read Tench Coxe’s letters in support of the 2A and Bill of Rights?”

          Unfortunately, the founders went for brevity, and did not use Coxe’s words as the preamble to the Second. Would have saved us so much grief.

        6. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          But, all of you are forgetting the basic point. The Constitution was written in cursive and Leftist Millennials (Millennials in general, leftists and may others) are not able to read cursive. So, they make up their own version and no one will contravene.
          https://i1.wp.com/thefunnyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AOC-Constitution-In-Cursive.jpg?resize=1024%2C647&ssl=1

      3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        #1 Spot on.

        Senators represented their States business.

      4. avatar Steve Taylor says:

        I only wish the people knew about the requirements for being president. One must be 45 years of age and must be a natural born citizen at birth or a citizen at the signing of the constitution. No one seems to know the meaning of natural born.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I only wish *you* knew, lol. It’s 35 years old.

          Article II, Section 1
          “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

      5. avatar Donttreadonme says:

        Great, and informative post.

        I’d like to add though that the leftists are seeing the writing on the wall that the court is being flipped to a more conservative leaning side and it will be even more so once RBG kicks the bucket. They realize that they are looking at another 30 years or so of a court that doesn’t lean their away, and now they are simply throwing a temper tantrum.

        If the shoe was on the other foot that would be freaking out if the right suggested something like this.

      6. avatar sparkyinWI says:

        This ^^^^^^ Well stated truth. Too bad no one in office will pay attention and do something to right this.

      7. avatar Chicago_Chicago says:

        How do we put the executive back behind the constitution?
        I doubt we can repeal the 17th….?
        If we reduce the power of SC how will the effect 2A rights given a state (California,Illinios NJ NY exe) can and will just make anti 2a laws?

        Can we as gun-owners, small gove folks shift the GOP or Dems for that mater to a party of pragmatism, responsibility and freedom?

        How do we do that?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If we reduce the power of SC how will the effect 2A rights given a state (California,Illinios NJ NY exe) can and will just make anti 2a laws?”

          It is important to understand the vast, cavernous, difference between the state of the nation at the founding, and since 1868 (14th Amendment).

          The original compact was between independent (of each other and a central ruler) states. That compact endowed a national government with limited authority, allowing the States to manage their own internal affairs as they saw fit (constrained only by the agreed powers lent the central government). In that condition, the States could pretty much decide things based upon a States population and culture. The BOR was not a constraint on the States.

          Returning to the status of States and central government envisioned in the beginning, a mishmash of gun laws was perfectly in line with the theories of the day. Indeed, a mishmash of a whole sack full of what are now national laws fit within the original intent of the founders. When we demand a return to the constitution of the founders, we should know what that really meant/means.

      8. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Hear, hear! You nailed it. Well done.

      9. avatar Gloria fox says:

        I found your post very informative. My question to you is how did the 17th amendment change the balance of powers?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…how did the 17th amendment change the balance of powers?”

          This may take a bit…

          The 14th Amendment inverted the power structure, empowering the central committee over the states. Indeed, prior to the 14th, one found references to states (the United States are) in the plural. After, the reference was singular (the United States is). Also, “States” became “states”. Power ceased to flow from the states, and began to flow from the central committee.

          The 17th Amendment took power from the individual state government, and put it in the hands (via the vote) of the citizens. Founders purposely had three layers (public, state, federal) in mind. The states were to appoint senators as a means to ensure senators represented the state, not the popular vote (that’s what Representatives are for). The voters were represented by parochial interests of their districts by Representatives. States were represented as a whole by Senators (appointed by governors), who were supposed to have a broader view of state matter than district representatives elected by popular vote. The entire nation was to be represented (in limited form) the the President.

          Popular vote election of Senators created overlapping representation, and, against the plan of the founders, made Senators subject to the blowing winds of the populace. This essentially removed any representation of the states as a separate layer, a separate constituency. After the 17th was ratified, Senators became merely large district Representatives with longer term of Office. The throttle on public passion in the state was removed.

        2. avatar Wood says:

          It took the power to appoint and fire senators away from the respective States and gave the people the power to directly elect the senators. The people already had representation through the House of Representatives. Now the states’ interests are weakened and the people have gained that balance of power. But what good is a pure democracy? None at all. Now the senators are federal employees. And even less beholden to their employers.

          However at this point the HoRes only represent urban population centers, and they certainly don’t pay the Constitution any mind. So maybe it’s not all bad that the Senate isn’t under the thumb of the many states; direct control of the senators by certain states would be a bad thing. I’d like to see state level electoral colleges. It is the only way to break the stranglehold of population centers.

      10. avatar Henry J says:

        tl;dr

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “tl;dr”

          Explains alot; US Constitution is definitely TL. As are “The Federalist Papers”, and court rulings.

          But all seriousness aside, why is it important for the readership to learn you did not read the comment?

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Sounds like five Senate Demokkkommies need one way tickets to GITMO.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Even better give them the extra justices….. right this month.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Yes. Trump needs to beat them to the punch. 10 more conservative justices right now.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Isn’t attempting to influence a Federal judge a fucking *felony*?

          Someone needs to put a bug in Barr’s ear…

    2. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

      If this is the case it only proves what most depraved Democrat members of Congress: House and Senate are: deceitful crooked immoral treasonous and socialist! Not since Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) and his corrupt lieutenant then in U.S. Senate, the late Thomas Dodd (D) of Connecticut, have I even seen such deceitful vindictive malevolent class warfare against innocent American gun owners, the Second Amendment, the NRA, and our Second Amendment civil rights! I could continue on with this, but won’t. On the net:

      JPFO, Inc. at http://www.jpfo.org. JPFO, Inc. is “America’s Aggressive Civil Rights Organization” and is non-NRA affiliated.

      James A. “Jim” Farmer
      Merrill, Oregon (Klamath County)
      Long live the State of Jefferson

    3. avatar American Patriot says:

      Was thinking some place else….Just 6′ away….!

      1. avatar Clay-in-UT says:

        that’s just over by the tree of justice, right?

        1. avatar Clay-in-UT says:

          Liberty

    4. avatar Chuckers says:

      Aman brother. When the wierdo whacko’s Obama made ruling contrary to the US Constituion the damned dems were jumping with joy, the a-holes. I can now say for the first time in my life I hate the democrat party, may they die. If they do get in control God help the country because it will not be the USA any longer.

      1. avatar Jonathan Lemaire says:

        If you support either side of the same coin you’re perpetuating the madness our founding fathers warned us about. Bipartisan politics only control through irrational fears. Both sides work for the same corporations, the system is not broken, it’s designed this way. If you hate your fellow citizens because you are told to, than they have won, you become their unwitting tool. Don’t support either side as both remove our rights constantly.

  3. avatar TommyGNR says:

    It must be a real possibility that SCOTUS is going to hand down a very pro 2nd ruling. These demorats would not be squirming so much if it were otherwise. I agree that the real target is Roberts. There is evidence that he has been pushed around before.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      My wife strongly suspects that Roberts is gay and that the Democrats blackmail him with evidence to out him.

      1. avatar Hank says:

        If that’s true he should openly embrace it. A gay conservative would be a slap in the face to the alphabet soup nonsense.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          Look up Carl Demaio from San Diego to see a gay conservative. Liberals always try to question his gayness.
          https://kogo.iheart.com/featured/the-demaio-report/
          Now he is running to replace Duncan Hunter who may go to jail. Dems are very worried because he can turn blue races into close calls.
          https://ballotpedia.org/Carl_DeMaio

  4. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

    Huh so back to New Deal era criticism of and threats to the SC to push through more citizen control/maintain the boot. Will be interesting to see how this plays out with only one segment on the progressive end (nominally anyway)

  5. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    I would hope Thomas would be infuriated at being threatened by politicians and give them a ruling the Democrats will really hate…

  6. avatar Stateisevil says:

    The Demoncrats need not worry. The SCOTUS has been quite ineffective at stopping tyranny and unconstitutional “laws”. Especially as it relates to the right to keep and bear arms. I would be shocked if anything they do adversely affects, semi auto bans, magazine bans, waiting periods, registration, carry bans or the like. Certainly with the current make up anything they do will be worthless for us.

  7. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Even RBG is against restructuring.
    No they need to look at the courts and where ever there are opposing opinions among the different circuits, take up those cases.

  8. avatar Gregory Peter DuPont says:

    Do they WANT Yugoslavia Version 2.0? Because that’s how you get Yugoslavia Version 2.0.

    1. avatar Dog of War says:

      Of course that’s what they want. They are just under the mistaken impression that they’re going to win.

    2. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      Ultimately, the Midwest and South cannot happily share the same government with New York and Los Angeles. There is too much of a political divide on issues that absolutely will not be compromised. A partition is ultimately the only way to prevent a civil war. Like the late Roman Empire, the United States is simply too big and diverse to manage as one unit.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        There are several differences including rural vs metro areas too.

        Unfortunately there will be conflict prior to any split.

      2. avatar Roland says:

        Amen. The best future we can hope for is that red and blue America peacefully divorce and go their separate ways. The coasts might as well be a foreign country to me.

      3. avatar Wood says:

        If only there were a way for the many states to work together on the big things that have a common interest, but maintain their own identity and home rule… I’VE GOT IT! A Constitutional Republic!

        It’s so simple, a caveman could understand it 🙄

  9. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    They are seeing the writing on the wall: that they’re going to lose, so they throw a temper tantrum like a little snot-nose baby and say “no no no! You’re not allowed to win!”

  10. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    remember…the Republicans can do the exact same thing…be very careful

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      With such an open threat, we’re foolish for not doing it first. With continued mass immigration, our opportunities to hold the Presidency and the Senate in the future are limited.

  11. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    If they want a civil war, tell them to go ahead! They have demonstrated they have NO respect for the Constitution!

  12. avatar tlw says:

    What really needs to happen is to jack the whole damn mess up and start with new people who actually give a shit about upholding the constitution and doing their damn job. I don’t think there is a single person in Washington today that hasn’t been bought and paid for by some lobby group or has drank the moron koolaid that seems to be tainting the water supply up there. They all lie, and you know they are lying if you see their lips moving.

    1. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

      ” I don’t think there is a single person in Washington today that hasn’t been bought and paid for by some lobby group or has drank the moron koolaid that seems to be tainting the water supply up there. ”

      Except for TRUMP.

      Dislike him if you must, disagree with some of his stuff like I do…however…the only ring I see him kissing is Israel’s. And that might be some long-game strategy of some type.

  13. avatar Dude says:

    If they’re truly sincere, then I’ll wait for them to sponsor a senate bill immediately after Trump and republican senate wins in 2020. He’ll get to appoint the new Justices, but they aren’t worried about that right? How does anyone take them seriously?

  14. avatar Mark N. says:

    Wait, let me get this straight. They are concerned that the court has become too politicized, so they make political threats to pack the court if it doesn’t bend to their political positions. Hypocrites. I do not know of any judge who takes kindly to being threatened, and I hope Roberts is not one. IN any event, I think that Roberts has enough spine to stand up to threats as long as they push him the way he wants to go anyway.

    All that said, the court has scheduled a conference October 1 to decide the “mootness” issue, a discretionary decision. There is enough authority on both sides of the question to allow the court to take whatever path it wants to. And if it dumps this case, there are at least three more being held in the wings.

    Second, according to an amicus brief filed by five con law professors, application of strict scrutiny to 2A questions is not a foregone conclusion. They argue that the court has applied lesser standards on numerous occasions to other fundamental rights protected by the BOR. They also argue that the court cases decided since Heller have been faithful to that decision when applying intermediate scrutiny. I haven’t finished reading the brief, but I suspect that they do not address the unique “shall not be infringed” language that appears in no other of the first ten amendments.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “They are concerned that the court has become too politicized, so they make political threats to pack the court if it doesn’t bend to their political positions. Hypocrites.”

      Not hypocritical at all. When they do it, it’s being ‘patriotic’.

      When we do it, it’s treason.

      “I do not know of any judge who takes kindly to being threatened, and I hope Roberts is not one.”

      We’ve seen evidence that happened in the 2012 ObamaCare SCOTUS case, when Obama publicly declared :

      ” President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of “judicial activism” that Republicans say they abhor.”

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-healthcare/obama-takes-a-shot-at-supreme-court-over-healthcare-idUSBRE8310WP20120402

      “IN any event, I think that Roberts has enough spine to stand up to threats as long as they push him the way he wants to go anyway.”

      Roberts sure sounded skeptical during the oral arguments in the 2012 ‘ObamaCare’ case…

  15. avatar Dog of War says:

    Well at least these authoritarian scum bags are being honest for once. They’re going to get their way anyway they can. If they can’t erase our rights with a new law that’s ruled unconstitutional in the courts then they’ll just reshuffle the courts until they get a judge that’s sympathetic.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Seriously, aren’t these the same people that said Trump would be an authoritarian? Projection, much?

  16. avatar Darkman says:

    Since the requirements to alter the number of justices. Is a simply a matter of either having bipartisan support for the legislation necessary to add or subtract the seated number. Or gaining a super majority of both houses of Congress and/or the Presidency. This is nothing more than hyperbole to rile up their base and give the MSM something else to talk about. Instead of all the positives the current administration has afforded the citizenry of the nation.The Time is 3 minutes Til Midnight. Keep Your Powder Dry.

    1. avatar Jim Warren says:

      Two minutes actually… pack a lunch.

  17. avatar billy-bob says:

    Well of course they do. Can’t let a silly thing like the constitution get in the way of their rush to socialist nirvana.

  18. avatar David says:

    FDR threatened this in the 1930s. The Justices got scared and started ruling in his favor. Eventually because Dictator Roosevelt was in office so long, he replaced much of the Court with loyal Democrats. That’s why this issue pisses me off so much. Every time the Democrats lose, they threaten to or actually do change the rules to serve their purposes. They have never been able to believe that the rest of the country can’t stand them or their policies! The are now crying about the Justices being influenced by politics but they have no problem when the Justices follow the politics of the Left. Damnable hypocrites!

    1. avatar Herb Allen says:

      Actually, the failure of FDR’s court-packing bill was his greatest defeat in office. He had wanted an additional justice for each sitting justice over age 70, which worked out to six extra. The bill was just two Senate votes from passage when the court made two rulings in favor of New Deal programs, thus the saying “A switch in time saved nine”.

      There had been suspicion in the Senate of this bill which seemed to characterize age as a disability. Many justices (and Senators) had distinguished careers and sage decisions well into their 80’s. It died in committee & FDR never again tried to pack the Supreme Court.

      Heck, I’m 70 & far from being ready for the happy home!

  19. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    It’s called an *INDEPENDENT* Judiciary.
    They need to back off.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Just when I think I won’t vote Trump next year they propose this BS…are they for internment(reeducation?)camps for republicans too?!? Be careful chitheads-we’re a whole lot better armed😫😎😎

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      Those rascally politicians from the other party toeing their party line rather than yours. How dare they. Voting for an anti-gun Republican will show them who’s boss.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        So I should vote for a virulently antigun and anti {insert long list + puppies here} democrat?

    2. avatar Chicago_Chicago says:

      Yep I dont want to vote trump either……but………

  21. avatar ozzallos says:

    Stack the Supreme court with democrats? A-OKAY!
    Stack it with Republicans? OMGWTFBBQ!!
    And lets repeal the Electoral College because that didn’t go their way either lol.

    I’m going to warn you 4dchess obsessed trump haters right now. You fuck this election up and its the end of the United States as you know it. And all you little warmongers posting to the forum, it’s not going to be as grand as you think it will be.

  22. avatar Ric says:

    The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the Court at nine. FDR tried to pack the Court and couldn’t.
    No they didn’t knuckle under out of fear, the were and are ultimately secure.
    The Democrooks know this as most of them are already lawyers.

    Their base doesn’t have the brains to think about it in any depth. So they rant, cheer, donate, and vote as useful idiots.

    Mercysdad.com

  23. avatar IN Dave says:

    Have they ever thought that the majority of Americans think the court is too political because justices forget to refer back to the constitution? Or that the democrats are so willing to add more political influence only if they win? The court should remain as is and WE should not be the one packing the court. Otherwise we will always hear; “they did it first”.

    After the Dems pack the court, “if” they win, our side should do the exact same thing to an extreme. Like so extreme that I can change my name to Supreme Court Justice IN Dave!! It does have a nice ring to it.

  24. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Libitards.
    Grow up already. You lost the election. It been almost 3 years now of nothing but obstructionism.
    If the only thing Trump does right is pick the best for our courts. Ill be happy.
    Face it already. You might get a turn in 2024, so stop crying.
    Besides how much more demented can you all look???

  25. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Democrat Senators Threaten to ‘Restructure’ Supreme Court if Second Amendment Ruling Goes Against Them”

    OH, sorry, you cannot re-write the rules because they don’t your way…

  26. avatar Parnell says:

    Not exactly the smartest political move. The polls show the public overwhelmingly rejects the idea of court packing and threatening the Justices won’t go over well. Just more proof the Democrats have lost their minds.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Just as it did under FDR.

  27. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Perhaps restructuring of the Bolshevik party is in order,their propaganda wing in Hollywierd just canceled a movie dealing with hunting. The Left sees those different in their views of the Republic verses them as less than.
    I wonder how many hunters there are of the left,as the left is anti hunting also against the Constitution the Right To Bear Arms,even the Republic it’s self. I know there are many that that comprise those that the left despises and they are “Well Regulated” marksmen and women who wouldn’t be the easy prey the Lefts seems to think. The Left may want to rethink that fantasy before the reality spells their doom.

  28. avatar NH Guy says:

    From the Declaration of Independence: “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

    I’m afraid we’re living in a post Constitution, post Federalist country. There are plenty of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who think they are our betters and that they are entitled to rule over us – not to represent us. For them, the Constitution only means what they say it means. Their (so far successful) drive to completely politicize the judiciary has made us less free.

    The Democrats, especially, are hell bent on accomplishing their goals by any means necessary.

  29. avatar Enuf says:

    The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, that there is a Chief Justice and Associate Justices and their authorities. It does not set the number of justices, though I suppose the minimum is two. It does not state how they are selected, that duty is assigned to Congress.

    Now then, both political parties have worked very hard for generations to stear the court their way. I’m surprised that it has taken this long for one side to claim the other side did it. The reality is that one side is suddenly winning this game, so the other is thinking about how to change the game.

    Well, that could turn out badly for the current winning side, but it remains a fact that the reason for all this noise is because both sides have been badly behaved, trying to force their politics into the Supreme Court while claiming they are not.

    I fault both sides, but do not want the court changed. At least, not until after certain cases before the court go my way. NYSRPA?

    After that if the Congress wants to have a knock down, drag out, bar the door fist fight over redesigning the court to eliminate political influence real or imagined, I wanna sell tickets to that show!!!!

  30. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    The Supreme Court has been against gun rights for 150 years that I can think of. Y’all are just groupies for it now because the other two branches treat you like dirt and the low frequency of gun rights decisions will allow you to cling to your delusion that Trump is a crypto-RKBA-supporter until his terms are over.

  31. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Excellent idea and we should have term limits too. The Supreme Court has become a pompous dictatorial joke and is long past due for drastic reform. Its constant trashing of the Constitution over politics and its consistent blasphemy of the Constitution is an absolute outrage in front of the American people who have had it with these criminals.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Like the imaginary right to abort babies?

    2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      So you want term limits and pack the court? Ok, sure, until a Republican or conservative president gets to nominate the packed court. Then you will be back to your usual foot stamping. Ah well.

  32. avatar daveinwyo says:

    All a judge is is a lawyer that sucked up to a politician.
    Tired of all the crap. Bring it.
    Damnocraps can urinate vertically on dangling cordage.

  33. avatar Alan says:

    There is one proper place for the cosmetic changes made to N.Y. C. law, and to the statute itself, with or without the changes, which might well turn out to be fleeting. The Trash Bin. By the way, might there be room in said Trash Bin for the N.Y.P.D’s Pistol License Bureau, as well as the state’s Sullivan Law?

  34. avatar jbob says:

    Clinton is talking about using the Senate to rewrite the First Amendment to overturn citizens.

  35. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Democrat Senators Threaten to ‘Restructure’ Supreme Court if Second Amendment Ruling Goes Against Them”

    Politicians constructing an SC that is guaranteed to favor them.

    It is called de-politicizing the SC.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      ““Democrat Senators Threaten to ‘Restructure’ Supreme Court if Second Amendment Ruling Goes Against Them”

      Politicians constructing an SC that is guaranteed to favor them.”

      Serious question –

      Can you think of a faster way to kick-start the breakup of this country?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Can you think of a faster way to kick-start the breakup of this country?”

        Hate speech and hate crimes run amuck. We are seeing the beginnings, now. Californication just declared that only “expressive” speech should be allowed to be protected by the First Amendment. “Expressive speech” is defined (within context of First Amendment) as: behavior (including actual spoken words) designed to convey a message.

        Now, I cannot imagine any form of communication (speech) that does not convey a message, but apparently the legal community and the federal courts can. And while “hate speech” allegedly conveys a message, the twist will become that hate speech is an illegitimate behavior, thus not the conveying of a protected messaging contemplated by prior SC rulings about which forms of speech may be regulated. The end result will be the marriage between hate speech and hate crimes, both declared not legitimate expression, and the terms become interchangeable.

  36. avatar FedUp says:

    When Democrats threatened SCOTUS in the 1930s, SCOTUS caved in.

    But it might backfire against them this time.
    Last time the Democommies controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

  37. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    What they fail to realize is that this is not a game of checkers or Monopoly. Tossing the game board because you don’t like the way things are going for you does not end the competition. The game will go on no matter how far the playing pieces are flung. Removing the player(s) that won’t follow the rules or decide to cheat is a reasonable option for the remaining contestants.

  38. avatar FB says:

    Thats rediculous. The entire constitution goes against them. What amendment is next?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The entire constitution goes against them.”

      How so?

  39. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Counting his chickens before he even has the eggs…

  40. avatar LasVegasBret says:

    Restructuring isn’t needed.

    Require unanimity in decisions. No unanimous decision, the law is null and void. If we can’t get agreement on what is constitutionally sound, then it is bad law that is bad for citizens.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “No unanimous decision, the law is null and void.”

      Without unanimous decisions, the ruling of the next lower court stands.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      LasVegasBret,

      That is a Constitutional Amendment that I can support wholeheartedly!

  41. avatar MDH says:

    Really, with the radical Bolsheviks finally fully at the helm, it looks like the Democrat Neo-Communist Party is bound and determined to either engineer a hostile takeover of our political and financial institutions, lock, stock and barrel, or commit political suicide, en masse, in the process.

    Got popcorn?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Got popcorn?”

      Yes, but I am not sharing.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        That is the Peoples’ popcorn, hoarder! Execute him, Commissar!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That is the Peoples’ popcorn, hoarder! Execute him, Commissar!”

          I am the Supreme Dear Leader for Life and After. What belongs to the people is mine to begin with. Commissars work for me.

  42. avatar DrDKW says:

    Perhaps SCOTUS can hold them for ‘contempt of court’!

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Perhaps SCOTUS can hold them for ‘contempt of court’!”

      The justice department can (and should) charge and hold them for felony attempting to influence a Federal judge…

  43. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”

    That’s the “friendly” warning message that was sent by five Senate Democrats in a brief filed in the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v City of New York.


    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! One political party threatening to remake the U.S. Supreme Court in order to override the current court, which reflects the will of the people who elected the President of the U.S. and the U.S. Senators who installed the Supreme Court Justices, is magnifying the influence of politics, not reducing the influence of politics. And yet that is somehow okay if the Democrats do it.

    Once again we see Democrats advocating the mantra, “Rules for thee and none for me.”

    1. avatar MDH says:

      You keep calling them “Democrats”. Sorry but the “Democrats” left the room a long time ago. What you are dealing with now are Bosheviks, no irony, no kidding, (no quotes).

      Sadly, the final switch, the pivot, occurred more or less without anyone noticing during the last Midterm election.

      You aren’t really dealing with “Democrats” anymore. They’re history.

      Know your enemy.

      1. avatar David Bradford says:

        Bolsheviks

        1. avatar MDH says:

          Correct. Thank you.

  44. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Democrats pass law to restructure court. Scotus rules 5/4 restructuring law is unconstitutional. Democrats : “ Dohhh!” As they collectively facepalm.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Democrats pass law to restructure court.”

      Let us presume that an SC restructure law is passed, and signed. What is interesting is Congress has complete authority to establish the number of seats on the SC. There is really no constitutional issue.

      1789 – SC established via the Judiciary Act 1789 (note that the SC did not rise out of the mist simply because the constitution directed a supreme court be established)

      1789 – SC legislated to consist of Chief Justice and five Associate justices (the constitution is absolutely silent on how many seats will be created for the SC)

      1789 – Judiciary Act created/authorized/ established the jurisdiction of the SC

      Since 1789, Congress has established more than five SC seats, and collapsed that number subsequently, finally settling the number at nine for the modern eras.

      Point being, a dictatorial Congress and President can constitutionally do as they wish with the number of SC seats. However, only the courts can set internal operation rules and procedures. If it should happen that Congress and a President do not like the way the courts operate, they can pass and sign legislation refusing funding for whichever procedure and rules are bothersome. Just as Congress and the President can completely eliminate all the federal courts below SC.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        None of that changes the fact that doing so would be an end-game power play, and everyone involved would know it. The only reason to change the number of justices would be to acquire & abuse “root access” for our system of government in order to force policy onto a minority that would otherwise be protected from such attempts.

        Once that seventh seal is breached, there is nothing to control what happens after; it would be revolution with intent of dominating the minority. Which is to say, a declaration of civil war. It goes beyond it being a constitution issue, to being an existential issue. That whole “the constitution isn’t suicide pact” thing.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “None of that changes the fact that doing so would be an end-game power play,…”

          Would it be acceptable if the “right people”, for the “right reasons” did the same thing?

          Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863. Why were those increases not the catalyst for insurrection?

        2. avatar Parnell says:

          Could it be that on those occasions, given the lack of mass communication, the public really wasn’t aware of the action nor recognized the import of it?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Could it be that on those occasions, given the lack of mass communication, the public really wasn’t aware of the action nor recognized the import of it?”

          The reigning politicians of the day were acutely aware of the changes and the implications. While communications were limited, they were not non-existent. Political parties were more powerful, often choosing presidential candidates, rather than leave it up to the public. No, the number of seats on the SC were not set in stone in the founding. The number has always been congressional territory. Additionally, the changes in the number of seats were not without serious controversy,

          Congress could set the number of justices on the SC to be one – the Chief Justice.

          The “power” lies not in the number of seats on the SC, but in the political parties setting that number. So, we return to the question: Would changing/packing the number of seats on the SC be acceptable if “the right people”, for “the right reasons” were making the change? Perhaps “the right people” could set the number of SC Justices at 50 (one for every state), assuring no decisions could ever reach majority, much less unanimity.

  45. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    Threatening judges never seems to work out well. I wonder if Supreme Court judges feel differently about that sort of thing.

    I certainly fucking hope not.

  46. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Since federal jurists are considered to be appointed for life {constitution says “on good behavior”, meaning they can be and have been impeached although no member of SCOTUS have ever been removed} restructuring is not really a threat. Roberts and the rest of them are not going to be removed so their FAAAAAAAT paychecks will continue the rest of their lives. The Democrats need to be reminded that BOTH parties can play that game. The Biden Rule, which the Democrats never got the chance to use, was used by the GOP on Merritt Garland. Harry Reid’s nuclear option was used by the GOP for SCOTUS appointments. Do the Democrats really want the GOP in 2021 to add another 6 Justices?

  47. avatar Gus says:

    Time to pass a law banning Democrats!

  48. avatar Arc says:

    Stack the court and the court loses all recognition.

  49. avatar Carl up North says:

    They have some real chutzpah and overinflated ovaries arguing against an enumerated constitutional right.

  50. avatar Aleric says:

    This is nothing but the Leftist thinking they can seize power and the people will do nothing. If the GOP and Congress wont put down these seditious mongrels then the constitution compels every American to do so.

  51. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Roberts could throw a sop to one crowd by finding NYSR&PA moot, while also instituting strict scrutiny thru the other case so that he doesn’t look like he’s caving to public pressure…”

    Then they’ll just do the same thing with that case. This, apparently, is a hill democrat senators want to die on. Well, not them, but they want to make other people die for them on it.

  52. avatar Ark says:

    “Allow us to flagrantly violate the constitution in our own pet fiefdom states, or we’ll destroy your institution.”

    Meh. I’m at the “fuck around and find out” stage.

  53. avatar betterthanthecourt says:

    Do yourself a favor and read some of the attachments to 18-280. Not only did the above happen but another response for NYC spoke of how the court go Heller wrong and it should be reversed.

    The court should take kindly to them stating the court made an incorrect decision in a case that was settled over a decade ago. It shows their elitist views front and center. They obviously know better than the court, even when it was slighted in their direction. What a laugh riot.

  54. avatar Rusty Newmam says:

    Perhaps the time is near to roll the tumbrils through the halls of Congress and restructure it!

  55. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Thank god for the old white men who wrote a Bill for Rights for the US Constitution. That is what is saving us now. And it will always save us.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      edit
      Bill Of Rights.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Don’t thank God for just the old white men who authored it. Plenty of men and women of all colors and origins have given of their lives and blood to keep it relevant. The left cannot be allowed to push the lie that it is obsolete because it has only ever been of value of to old white men.

    3. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

      Well actually, quite a few of those old white men thought a Bill of Rights unnecessary because, to paraphrase Hamilton from Federalist 84, “Why say that things shall not be done for which there is no power to do?” The Federalists saw a Bill of Rights as redundant and even dangerous as it can give the impression that the government does have the authority to restrict various rights to some degree. The anti-Federalists however would not support ratification without a Bill of Rights, so the Federalists reluctantly promised to add one. In a way, they both turned out to be right.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The anti-Federalists however would not support ratification without a Bill of Rights,”

        In which they inserted two amendments to clarify that States retained powers not listed.

  56. avatar John Galt says:

    Hang ‘em and leave them for the crows

  57. avatar barnbwt says:

    I sure hope ya’ll realize that court-packing is “go time” if you’re ever gonna. The courts are the last fig-leaf of a slim hope that we can one day right the ship. We all know they won’t, but at least we can pretend. When the leftists (or rightists, for that matter) attempt to directly manipulate the courts to get the results they want, it is a very rapid but very short slide into full-on despotism.

    Even FDR wasn’t crazy enough to actually try packing the courts; he just threatened to. There weren’t very many policies that tyrant threatened which he didn’t make good on, especially those he had the power to inflict on American citizens. Court packing was one, because he knew what would happen to him if he pulled that thread. The courts did, too, so they relented to his demands, ‘mooting’ the need to manipulate the courts.

    I would say there’s no way a handful of senior Democrats don’t understand the forces they are tampering with here, but let’s face it; most tyrants that end up ripped apart by a rebelling mob usually don’t either.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I sure hope ya’ll realize that court-packing is “go time”…”

      Why would that be?

      If you look closely at the constitution, there is provision for the voting public to vote themselves into servitude. “A republic, if you can keep it.”

      1. avatar Wood says:

        “Go time” as the Founders would have seen it is well and truly passed. We frogs are just cooking along merrily. Our Republic has fallen, but this too shall pass. The planet will laugh last as all we ever were, a thin dirty rind on the surface, goes down a subduction zone.

        But I’m a pessimist by nature.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” “Go time” as the Founders would have seen it is well and truly passed. ”

          Hard to argue with that.

  58. avatar Anthony Proud says:

    The second amendment stands FOR patriots..
    That dont want to be ruled by tyrany.
    Yes of their own Government.
    Then being England.
    And forever more Any Government ,
    with too many silly laws too many taxes too much politics favoring Rich rulers.
    Sound familiar?
    We the people have the right to rebel against
    an unfair goverment of our own shores.
    THAT’S THE MEANING.!!!!
    SO lets quit kicking the can down personal
    political roads.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email