A Pro-Gun Ruling Will Inflame Court-Packing Push, Democratic Senator Warns Supreme Court

Labguy47 said:

I took it to mean they where going to jam the hearing with people disruptive and sympathetic to their cause to sway the judges opinion.

Click to expand...

Sway Supreme Court justices' opinion by being disruptive?

Heck no. By the time justices reach the Supreme Court, they will think independently based on their core legal beliefs, even against the presidents who appointed them. They got to the Supreme Court because they have legal thick skin and independent opinionated minds, respected and revered by other judges.

And if those in attendance become disruptive, they will simply be removed and jailed and justices will resume with, "Continue, counselor".

Aim1 said:

What Democrats don't seem to understand is what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Sure the dems could do it when they are in control, so say they add 2 justices to the Supreme Court but then Republicans regain control and add their own 2 and so forth, etc....

Click to expand...

Yes, the knife can cut both ways.

The anti-gun/2A socialist left Democrats are foaming at the mouth because they are losing the judicial battle that could and likely reverse their decades of work at the SCOTUS.

And now they want popular vote to become Democracy where the will of the majority CAN BE IMPOSED on the rights of the minority instead of electoral college Constitutional Republic where the will of the majority CANNOT BE IMPOSED on the rights of the minority (If they STUDIED and paid attention/stayed awake during American History, they would know this - But they don't ). And popular vote can cut both ways too. My sentiment is move to popular vote from electoral college won't likely happen.

And to increase the number of SCOTUS justices? Right, good idea. That will definitely cut both ways but FOR LIFE OF THE APPOINTED JUSTICE. So, that plan could backfire and cut for lifetime.

Walkalong said:

What is sickening is no term limits on Congress

Click to expand...

Dang, can we get "LIKE x10" button added?

The number of justices was reduced after the Civil War by the Radical Republicans who were fighting President Andrew Johnson from 10 to 7 with open positions being eliminated by attrition. Two Justices died or resigned so the court was restored to 9 members in 1869 after the Johnson impeachment and the inauguration of President Grant. https://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html

This Congress also did things like remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear habeas cases in a pending case. The case had already been argued before the court and fear of Congress and impeachment made the Supreme Court run away in retreat and declare the jurisdiction stripping constitutional based ironically on Marbury's opinion regarding original and appellate jurisdictions of the court (see Ex Parte McCardle). This Congress also impeached the president for violating a probably unconstitutional law requiring approval for the firing of cabinet members and forced ratification of amendments for states to regain their status after the Civil War.

Want a preview of what happens with a large unchecked majority in Congress that ruthlessly adopts measures to preserve its power and reduce that of opponents, revisit the Reconstruction era Congress.

bds said:

The anti-gun/2A socialist left Democrats are foaming at the mouth because they are losing the judicial battle that could and likely reverse their decades of work at the SCOTUS.

And now they want popular vote to become Democracy where the will of the majority CAN BE IMPOSED on the rights of the minority instead of a Constitutional Republic where the will of the majority CANNOT BE IMPOSED on the rights of the minority (If they STUDIED and paid attention/stayed awake during American History, they would know this - But they don't ). And popular vote can cut both ways too. My sentiment is move to popular vote from electoral college won't likely happen.

And to increase the number of SCOTUS justices? Right, good idea. That will definitely cut both ways but FOR LIFE OF THE APPOINTED JUSTICE. So, that plan could backfire and cut for lifetime.

Click to expand...

A significant number of folks on the left believe like Turkey's current President has said, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." The mystical thinking goes something like, "ban guns and violence and crime disappears." Something similar happened in 1928 with the Kellog Briand international treaty outlawed wars between countries as a means of settling disputes with the idea that the World Court would do that now. https://www.britannica.com/event/Kellogg-Briand-Pact

Notable signatories included future Axis members Italy, Japan, and Germany among the rest, "On August 27, 1928, fifteen nations signed the pact at Paris. Signatories included France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy and Japan. Later, an additional forty-seven nations followed suit, so the pact was eventually signed by most of the established nations in the world. The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement by a vote of 85–1, though it did so only after making reservations to note that U.S. participation did not limit its right to self-defense or require it to act against signatories breaking the agreement." https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg Kellogg even got a Nobel Peace Prize award in 1929 for it.

Utopians may have the best intentions (although some latch on to these ideas as a means to get power) but most of their attempts to bring heaven to earth crash and burn with many collateral casualties.

GAF said:

After reading the article the word hypocrite can be used in a sentence to discribe Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

Click to expand...

Without much doubt, Whitehouse leans further (almost falling over) to the left than any other US Senator.

The man despises and fears guns , probably since from the cradle

A very sad Rhode Island case. We just have to move on from this irretrievable dilapidation.

A very clear warning is being sent to C. J. Roberts. IMO Roberts is a weak justice and is swayed by the last Justice that talks to him. President Obama threaten the Supreme Court on several occasions about overturning the Affordable Health Care Act. As we know Roberts voted to upheld the law.

Cliff notes: It's a twenty-five page rant about the court being used as extension of "right-wing" organizations who hide their donors from the public eye. It reads like a conspiracy theory. He and the other senators signed onto the brief are actually helping, not hurting our cause.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/d...d-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york-brief

Aim1 said:

Although court packing or changing the makeup of the court isn't illegal so they can do it.


What Democrats don't seem to understand is what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Sure the dems could do it when they are in control, so say they add 2 justices to the Supreme Court but then Republicans regain control and add their own 2 and so forth, etc....

Click to expand...

That (bolded) is true, and it's why we need to keep on top of this. As I said, FDR tried this and it was the strong reaction of the people against it that was largely why Roosevelt backed down.

They don't have to pack it - they can vote to cut it down to 7, last hired, first fired. However, playing with the Supreme Court, as mentioned many times here, would cause even more massive upheavals in government. I think the one thing they are most worried about is if RBG finally dies, and President Trump gets to pick the next Justice. THEN they will become totally unhinged.

Tommygunn said:

That (bolded) is true, and it's why we need to keep on top of this. As I said, FDR tried this and it was the strong reaction of the people against it that was largely why Roosevelt backed down.

Click to expand...

FDR also got strong pushback from Congress and the strain of pushing this unpopular legislation probably led to Maj. Leader Senator Robinson to die of a heart attack. Somewhere, I have read a report of FDR's initial briefing of his plan to key members of Congress and it did not go well. In revenge, FDR plotted to take out Dem. Senators (primarily from the South) that opposed him in this and some other matters. For the most part, he failed and essentially created some implacable enemies on the Hill as a result.

Aim1 said:

What Democrats don't seem to understand is what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

Click to expand...

Oh thats easy and being demonstrated, now on 2A issues. They (D's) will scream, (R)'s will cringe in fear, and capitulate to the (D) position

OK back to topic, they probably know there will be an unfavorable ruling against them , meaning, for FREEDOM, so, they are making these brash statements.

That away, when the SCOTUS ruling hits, they can cry 'the SCOTUS were upset with us saying pack the court'

Basura Blanca said:

Cliff notes: It's a twenty-five page rant about the court being used as extension of "right-wing" organizations who hide their donors from the public eye. It reads like a conspiracy theory. He and the other senators signed onto the brief are actually helping, not hurting our cause.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/d...d-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york-brief

Click to expand...

No one mentions that for decades the US Supreme Court has been used as an extension of left wing organizations.

Warren has issued a threat, a "don't do this or else" ultimatum.

jamesinalaska said:

Warren has issued a threat, a "don't do this or else" ultimatum.

Click to expand...

Warren's threat will have no consequences. The SCOTUS will proceed on its 5-4 current foundation

The next Justice to be confirmed is the key to the rulings of the foreseeable future and perhaps the future of the 2A.

I think good thoughts and believe in a positive outcome for the next generations.

Pat Riot said:

Politicians manipulating or attempting to manipulate activities in another branch of the government should be illegal on a treasonous level. I don’t care who they are or which party they represent.

Click to expand...

Exactly and should be extended to lawmakers who infringe on the constitution.

P5 Guy said:

No one mentions that for decades the US Supreme Court has been used as an extension of left wing organizations.

Click to expand...

That was OK it was in their favor.

Spats McGee said:

That might be problematic:

Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers also wrote "shall not be infringed", that didn't fare so well, either.

Mandatory retirement for the two OLDEST justices.

P5 Guy said:

Mandatory retirement for the two OLDEST justices.

Click to expand...

Can't happen constitutionally. The constitution calls for lifetime tenure ("good behavior").

P5 Guy said:

Mandatory retirement for the two OLDEST justices.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court would then be a merry go round.

You're always going to have the two oldest justices on the court.

I’m sorry, but I didn’t read the responses and just jumped to post a reply.

So doing something to block those who admittedly want to confiscate all firearms will trigger them into an action that they plan to take already. Huh?

Please tell me again why wouldn’t I want to oppose the leftists at every turn. My very existence “triggers” them.

This from the party that uses judicial activism as a tool to implement policies they can't get through legislatively.