Did Roberts and Kavanaugh Give In To Senate Intimidation in NYSRPA Ruling?

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., holds up documents as he speaks at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Friday, Sept. 28, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The dissenting justices say that if there are any remaining issues, like the coffee break question, then the case isn’t moot. Alito’s opinion also references the political brouhaha surrounding this case, explaining:

Five United States Senators, four of whom are members of the bar of this Court, filed a brief insisting that the case be dismissed. If the Court did not do so, they intimated, the public would realize that the Court is “motivated mainly by politics, rather than by adherence to the law,” and the Court would face the possibility of legislative reprisal.

Although he doesn’t say so explicitly, Alito seems to suggest that his colleagues in the majority crumbled under this pressure, writing, “Regrettably, the Court now dismisses the case as moot. If the Court were right on the law, I would of course approve that disposition.”

The “friend of the court” brief Alito refers to did set off a firestorm of controversy, and was dubbed an “enemy of the court” filing by the Wall Street Journal editorial board. In response to this submission, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and Republican lawmakers last August sent the Supreme Court a strange letter reassuring the justices that they ought not be intimidated by the rude submissions of Democratic politicians, yet including a similarly menacing message. In the letter, McConnell and his colleagues expressed fear that Americans will be unable to trust the court if the justices don’t go forward and decide the case, despite pressure from Democrats, lest they seem to be responding to politicians’ concerns.

– Ephrat Livni in Dissenting justices claim Supreme Court was “manipulated” in New York gun case

comments

  1. avatar Just Sayin (OG) says:

    It’s ALL political.
    Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    ALWAYS follow the money.

    Three truths to navigate life by.

    1. avatar Toni Smith says:

      spot on mate. another good one… never climb down a well on another mans rope.

      he who cheers a hero today, tomorrow carries in his belt the dagger of an assassin.

      keep the enemy you know close, that by his associates you know who your enemies are.

    2. avatar billy-bob says:

      Also, never trust a fart.

    3. avatar Thixotropic says:

      “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
      Thomas Jefferson, Letter to W.C. Jarvis, 1820

    4. avatar jwtaylor says:

      No. Power does not corrupt. Power merely reflects.

    5. avatar frank speak says:

      if the court “can do a little sidestep”…you can rest assured they will…here’s hoping they get a little heat about this…they should…

  2. avatar D says:

    Roberts was already compromised. Obamination care is proof.

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      Roberts was a plant from the beginning. Read up on the history behind the Heller ruling, and the deals & concessions that were made to get Roberts to sign off in the end.

    2. avatar Will says:

      Exactly! Roberts is a worm. He does the bidding of the communists and halfheartedly pretends to be a conservative.

      Kav? My guess is, after the absolute shitstorm that he – AND his family – were subjected to, that he was the one actually intimidated. The Left’s hate for him is so intense, they made it clear that if they gain control of all of Congress and the White House, they would move to impeach him and replace him with a communist, more along the lines of Sotomayor or Ginsburg.

  3. avatar Prndll says:

    Ok…

    Associated Press…uhmm

    Moving on

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      That’s what i’m thinkin’. With the news amd social media spreading FUD about covid, we’ve got a lot of BS info filtering to do and take with a grain of salt. Politicians are good with words, let’s judge with their past actions and current actions.

  4. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    some type of incentive to never actually force the lower courts to scrutinize their rulings?
    or cautious judges laying in wait for the best opportunity to uphold the scrawlings?
    you don’t get absolutism or original intention. i’d like to see it swing a substantial arc to the good.

  5. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

    ” If the Court did not do so, they intimated, the public would realize that the Court is “motivated mainly by politics, rather than by adherence to the law,” and the Court would face the possibility of legislative reprisal.”

    The last I heard, it was a felony crime to attempt to influence or intimidate a Federal judge to rule a certain way on a case.

    “That’s a real nice court you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it…” Does it get any less ambiguous than that?

    So why the fuck were they not charged with a crime?

    Anyways –

    I’ll reserve judgement until we see if the Court grants or denies cert. on the other 10 cases currently before it.

    What really chaps my ass, is if they don’t, they just trained the Leftists they have nothing to fear about passing infringing laws. They will just drag it out as long as they can, and moot any case granted cert. dragging this out for *decades*…

    1. avatar Ing says:

      They weren’t charged with a crime because the Senate has the constitutional power to decide the makeup of the court and to impeach justices, which (if I recall) is what they were threatening.

      Now, about the part where “they just trained the Leftists they have nothing to fear about passing infringing laws.” Exactly. Why would leftists/progressives NOT behave this way when it makes their squishy “conservative” opponents back down every…single…time?

      Lifetime appointments, isolated from political partisanship, plus being virtually the only part of the US government that citizens actually respect and trust to do the right thing…you’d think the Supreme Court *would* do the right thing, but that’s what you get for thinking.

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        “They weren’t charged with a crime because the Senate has the constitutional power to decide the makeup of the court and to impeach justices, which (if I recall) is what they were threatening.”

        Does such an exception actually exist? I find that kinda hard to swallow…

        1. avatar JR Pollock says:

          No, the Senate can’t do anything by itself/themselves. They can’t conduct an impeachment trial, without the HoR voting on and delivering the articles, and they can’t change the Judicial Vacancies Act alone. HoR has to pass a companion bill, and the President has to sign it.

          These clowns don’t even have a majority, so all they can do is attempt to intimidate the Justices.

          I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that they have committed the crimes of attempting to intimidate/influence a Federal Judge. I’d like to see AG Barr direct his US Attorneys to investigate, indict, and prosecute the offending Senators. That would be a bold stroke, and a real shot across the bow..

  6. avatar enuf says:

    I do wonder about that. I also wonder sometimes if a judge or politician who appears to be, or flat out claims to be a solid Second Amendment supporter in truth has a breaking point on the right. As in could there be some underlying Hoplophobia that gains influence with the potential impact of a pro-gun Bill or legal decision? So where a judge may write a scathing opinion striking down a restrictive law of narrow focus, a case having massive impact upon all gun laws reaching back to the NFA 1934 (plus earlier State and City laws) would weaken their resolve.

    Add in political pressure, where Congress controls the budget for the courts, and the “That’s as far as I’ll go on this issue” factor rears it’s ugly head.

  7. avatar enuf says:

    “Barr tells federal prosecutors to ‘be on the lookout’ for overly restrictive coronavirus shutdown orders”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-tells-federal-prosecutors-to-report-restrictive-coronavirus-shutdown-orders
    ——————————-

    So on the one hand I support the ideas to fight this pandemic with the many means now in place. But to have those means forced upon us, not voluntary from a leader showing the way to victory, that wreaks of Un-American Authoritarianism.

    So Barr saying DoJ should be on the look-out for excesses against our Constitutional Right To Freely Assemble is a good thing.

    How does this tie into the topic? That’s easy, why isn’t Barr doing the very same thing on the Second Amendment? Is it not a Civil Right enshrined within, enumerated by and clearly protected by its inclusion in the foundational law of our Republic? Should not the DoJ be a defending force watching out for and taking action when our rights are infringed upon?

    Or is that only a thing they do during election years when there is a specific campaign advantage to suddenly take up a cause?

    1. avatar Country Boy says:

      This “Covid19 is the next black plague is yet another hoax by the dems. Dr. fauxi is yet another deep stater, dem plant.He has been a Hillary supporter for many yrs.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Bullshit. Your TDS (Trump Deification Syndrome) has warped your brain. The two (sometimes more) docs getting on that White House podium are the ones doing their jobs best they can in the middle of a super partisan political furball. Your conspiracy theorists are out of your fucking gourds and NEVER admit agents prove you were gullible idiots.

        Such as the one where Obama had secret plans to revoke the Constitution, replace it with Sharia Law and seize the Presidency for life.

        I r ed member all that crap talk, but never once did you m in cri bail s own it when it did not happen.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Fauci’s love note to Hillary, courtesy of Wikileaks:

          https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/4379

          Believe it or not.

        2. avatar Lugnut says:

          I was going to respond but your message degenerated into a petulant unintelligible hissy fit. I swear I think you just shit your pants.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          “I r ed member all that crap talk, but never once did you m in cri bail s own it when it did not happen.”

          lugnut, i will not laugh harder than that today. way to poke the femwee.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          I would respond but I’m being held in the secret tunnels under the abandoned Walmart, FEMA is holding me here until they can force me to marry a gay man.

          Damn that Jade helm!

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        How much disinfectant did you drink today?

    2. avatar Mike V says:

      The cafeteria mentality pervades.

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Bot says:

    Supposedly the justices first and only duty is to the Constitution something is compromised,or as my grandmother used to say, something smells fishy.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Ehhh…who doesn’t know SCOTUS is all about politics?!? Or that Roberts is a fake conservative? Or Kavanaugh is a weenie? Yankee Marshall(who I don’t follow)blamed the “decision” on Brett alone. He’s the same jag who proclaimed him “guilty”in the Senate confirmation farce. Why don’t Dumbocrat judges ever turn RIGHT??? Our right’s don’t depend on unelected dweebs!!! Rant over…

    1. avatar Hush says:

      History seems to mean nothing to so many of the learned elected officials. Right and wrong are out the window but feelings, popularity and political tide are all that matters to these people in power via the votes of “we the people”. Time will tell if SCOTUS is an even bigger disappointment in the near future. It is a sad day, indeed, when the SCOTUS can be swayed by the opinions of 4 or 5 elected officials or 4 or 5 hundred. All have sworn to uphold the constitution and yet they perform as if the oath of office never took place and by their actions reveal themselves to be nothing more than liars as they stomp on the Constitution.

  10. avatar Darkman says:

    What did anyone truly expect to happen? The courts have not been a favorable Ally of the Constitution for many years. At any level. At best it has become an opinion fight of one court against another. Allowing for a “Long Game” approach to defining what Freedoms citizens have. With little regard to the Constitution. All the while slowly allowing the very idea Freedom to be watered down. To suit what faction is in power at the moment. The courts are no more a guarantee of Freedom. Than are politicians. Leaving the citizenry to founder on the winds of political change. Until Patriots make a stand and demand by force if necessary the return of their Freedoms as noted in the Constitution. They and their Rights will be nothing more than pawns in the game called politics. After many years and many attempts to secure their Rights. Our Founding Patriots grew to understand. The system was rigged against them. With great trepidation they chose to rebel and throw off the chains that hindered their Right to be Free. They left in the wake of that fight. A system that required the do diligence of the citizenry. To see that it was not corrupted by those who would use it to control the populace. In that duty. We as a society have failed. Allowing the Elite class of Our day to divide and conquer the populace on the very issues of Freedom. That were left in Our hands to Protect and Preserve. It is truly a sad time when “We The People”. Are more afraid of the consequences of fighting for Freedom. Than “We The People” are of Loosing Freedom. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  11. avatar million says:

    of course “Penaltax” Roberts went wobbly. who didn’t see that coming? i mean that with all seriousness. when the metal meets the meat, that clown’s a squish.

    there won’t be a 2A decision in our favor until Ginsburg is replaced.

  12. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    We really need a constitutional amendment to prevent packing of the Supreme Court.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Huh? That seems silly – maybe you should explain that idea. Maybe for starters, explain what you mean by “pack the court”. Then follow up with how you would prevent one party or the other from doing so, when it is power.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Can’t answer for him, this is for me. What I fear in that regard is a sudden change in SC makeup from 9 justices to, say, 15, while a communist is in the White house to nominate the players and Dems control the Senate to confirm them. Picture AOC and 5 of her besties in power in the SCOTUS for the next 50 years! A simple Amendment specifying 9 Justices Would eliminate that possibility, and it is way tougher to change than a majority vote in Congress.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      We can do that right after Trump is reelected and he throws 2 or 4 more on the court.

  13. avatar Dave says:

    I don’t know what they did, other than reinforce the fact that we can’t really count on the courts to do the right thing.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      And we can’t count on 27 words written 230 years ago either.

  14. avatar Debbie W. says:

    A lot of the problems are caused by self serving democrats and the fools who vote for them. Not all of the problems but a large chunk.
    Because Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide the only people the democrat party can sell Gun Control to are politically inept history illiterates.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “Because Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide…”

      As you mention on nearly *every* article… 🙂

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        das debra darks da defens dymano, duh.

  15. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

    Communism on the rise

  16. avatar BofR:GunsNoAbortionYes? says:

    Why start to destroy the thriving anti-gun industry. The Constitution is clear. Heller is clear but people’s jobs depend on perpetuating the myth.

  17. avatar Kendahl says:

    There is nothing new about intimidating the USSC. Back in the 1930s, it briefly stood in the way of some of FDR’s programs. The court folded when they were threatened with adding more justices all of whom would be FDR stooges.

    1. avatar Toni Smith says:

      which is exactly why it should be illegal for the senate or any govt official to tamper with the court at all. the only exceptions i would allow is adding new to take the place of ones who have stepped down or died, or impeachment in the case of actual criminal behavior (must have a victim). Anything else I would not only mandate that they be removed from office immediately upon discovery of evidence of such but after investigation if found to be guilty charged with treason and spending minimum 20 years in jail. No point having them there if they are not able to be independent arbiters and also while we are at it disbarment of any judges and laywers who try in any way to disallow jury nullification in their court rooms. Jury Nullification is one of the greatest tools for the removal of unjust laws and it has been being quashed in courtrooms for well over 30 years

  18. avatar Ironhead says:

    So Kavanaugh declares the case moot, and from what I understand afterwards said they should move on to other guns rights cases asap.
    Why is that? Cause you screwed the pooch on the big one, and you think that getting a small pro 2a victory will make people less pissed off at your spineless ass?
    Fuck you, you goddamned coward.

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    I practiced law for 35 years. I understand courts. Courts are where logic, decency and human rights go to die.

  20. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Occam’s Razor applies here. Why go looking for a conspiracy or intimidation when their own feckless stupidity and corrupt value systems will explain the situation quite well?

    They didn’t need to be intimidated. These two men are weasels and liars when they take oaths to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” That’s all.

  21. avatar Hannibal says:

    Curious. I thought that SCOTUS picks were the most important thing to think about when Trump\GOP talks about being pro-2nd Amendment.

    You know, forget about the fact that with the Senate, House and presidency were all in the same party’s hands yet they did absolutely nothing to help gun owners. It’s the democrat’s fault because they (would have) blocked it! Right?

    And forget about that little bump-stock ban that was entirely under the purview of the President’s branch. That’s… the democrats fault… somehow… they tricked him! Or he tricked them with his 6D chess! Or something. We don’t talk about that much anymore, do we?

    And now that we have the first “ruling” from SCOTUS on guns and the nominee that Trump pushed so hard to get in, the one that had an extremely contentious confirmation and better be worth it… punts.

    “Winning!”

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Now just you hush your mouth!

      They done figured out what they believe and they don’t need any pesky facts interfering with their opinion.

      Don’t be distracted, we all need to meet at cosmic pizza so we can free the children, it’s all about the children!

      Stop Jade helm, it is a takeover by FEMA!

      And get a super special deal on my product, Forever Male when you order now!

      You people are all laugh riot!

  22. avatar Elvis Montalban says:

    Sure, yeah, a bunch of people in power share your values and take you seriously but are prevented from acting accordingly by those villains in the other party. Also there’s a sapient, omnipotent god who will reward you and punish your enemies for all eternity. Crypto-allies all over the damn place! Checkmate liberals.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Oh buddy, you’re sure we’re going to roast in hell for that!

      1. avatar Elvis Montalban says:

        ^^

  23. avatar George says:

    Told all my Democrat friends(yeah, I have some, they’re just too old to change) that Kavanaugh was no threat to them as he would always rule much like the Justice he replaced and clerked for. Not the worst we could’ve got, not the best. Roberts now, he’s a snake.

  24. avatar Sabrina Gray says:

    Or it could be that NYS repealed the law thus making the law moot. Also, Alito could be telling Congress critters where to get off.

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    Maybe the 9 on the court didn’t want 6 or 10 new liberals on the bench as soon as democrats find a way to take over again. Worked for FDR.

  26. avatar Null and Void says:

    That one time they got it right………….

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they probably thought that in getting New York to back down…that was sufficient…and sends a message to others…could this have been a landmark case?….possibly…but clearly some thought it wasn’t the time for that…while others remain unhappy about the outcome…and will push even harder the next time…and it does look like there will be a next time

  27. avatar Canon says:

    Guys, did anyone read or listen to the case argued in front of the court? Our side didn’t do a great job that day and struggled with the liberals while the most stayed silent. Alito was brilliant and Gorsuch sympathetic but we weren’t prepared. It was very unfortunate, especially as a New Yorker, but it doesn’t mean that the fight isn’t work taking it back to the courts. The Second Circuit is now a majority Republican appointed bench. Let’s find cases to flood the place with as logic and the law is on your side.

Leave a Reply to Ralph Cancel reply

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

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