In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Dems are threatening the Supreme Court

Mark GMark G Member Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭
edited August 2019 in Politics
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction that must be remedied.

"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.'"

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was "motivated by politics" more than by the law.

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.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.

Yet other candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden has come out against court-packing, as has Bernie Sanders, though the Vermont senator has suggested rotating judges to other courts.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also spoken out against court-packing, telling NPR in July, "Nine seems to be a good number."

The Democratic senators' brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an "industrial-strength influence campaign" to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

If the court still decides to hear the case, a ruling against New York City could prevent other cities and states from passing similar gun control laws.

Conservatives currently outnumber liberals on the Supreme Court 5-4, but the past year featured a multitude of cases where conservatives ? including President Trump's picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ? sided with the liberal bloc.

WOW. That was quick. Moved from GD to Politics in less than a minute! Quick fingers Mark C :D


  • mag00mag00 Member Posts: 4,668
    edited November -1
    The only change I would like to see is that 7 of 9, would have to agree. This 4/5 spit is dividing America.

    They are supposed to be the brightest and best, and cannot agree, may as well have 9 monkeys there with a yes/no set of buttons and whatever the outcome that is law.

    Unanimous would be great, but lets face it, our legal schools are infiltrated by constitution haters.

  • Ricci WrightRicci Wright Member Posts: 9,670
    edited November -1
    Wah Wah Wah. I don?t like this game. I can?t win. I want to change the rules. Wah Wah Wah. These people need a good * whipping. Back hand the crap out of them every time they shoot off their mouths.
  • Quick&DeadQuick&Dead Member Posts: 1,699 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Dems are unhappy because the liberal judges are no longer in the majority. They cannot stand a S.C. that is not uber liberal, pure and simple.

    The number of judges on the S.C. has changed several times since instituted ......... and that number could be changed again via an act of congress ONLY.

    I don't see that happening ~ nor to I see liberal justices appointed during this Presidency. Should a Dem POTUS be elected, and there are openings on the S.C., you can bet a Dem POTUS would appoint a uber liberal to fill the position.
    The government has no rights. Only the people have rights which empowers the government.
    We have enough gun laws, what we need is IDIOT control.
    Blood makes you related. Loyalty makes you family.

    I thought getting old would take longer. :shock:
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 38,925
    edited November -1
    more incentives to get the repubs off their butts and out to VOTE.....would not have this problem if they had not WASTED terms of majority
Sign In or Register to comment.