Dem Senators put a gun to SCOTUS HEAD ..............In a threatening amicus brief, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand all but tell the Justices that they’ll retaliate politically if the Court doesn’t do what they say in a Second Amendment case.

The case involves a challenge to a New York City law that banned licensed gun owners from bringing handguns outside the city even if a gun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition. The Court accepted the case in January. Fearing a Supreme Court defeat, New York softened the restrictions and in July asked the Court to dismiss the case as moot. The Justices are scheduled to consider that question Oct. 1. The plaintiffs say the regulations are still unconstitutional. The Senators fear

that the Court will clarify its Second Amendment jurisprudence and broaden protections for gun ownership so they claim that NYCs revisions makes it a moot point. The Brief say that

“The Supreme Court is not well,” .......“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’” By “restructured,” they mean that if SCOTUS doesn't toe the Democrat agenda that they increase the number of Justices in SCOTUS And pack the court as FDR threatened to do years ago.
The Senators falsely claim that the conservative justices form a monolithic majority which unfortunately is far from the truth .Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts have voted in the majority a number of times against the other conservative members ;and Gorsuch has himself been the 5th vote with the other liberal members Unfortunately this type of 'legitimacy ' threat plays right into the imagined fears of Roberts who appears to be more interested in keeping his beltway dinner invitations coming than in making constitutional rulings . If he keeps it up he will face legitimacy questions from both sides of the divide .

Got a link thats not a right wing loony noise machine?

I read something almost word for word from the Wall Street Journal. Shouldn't you cite that publication? Still not sure about the rules here about that.

LOL, it appears the only free sites anymore are the right wing loony ones. The rest most require a subscription. Guess you guys got one, or Tom didn't want to link a loony tune site.

This modern stuff sucks unless you're a capitalist!

you guys are boring attacking a source .I can easily find sources from both spectrums as could you . Here's one more for your liking .
https://thinkprogress.org/five-democ...t-7601fed719e6

here is the quote I clearly identified as a quote from the amicus . It is in the one I just linked .….

And Whitehouse concludes the brief with a threat. “The Supreme Court is not well,” he writes, “and the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics’.”

In a more reasonable time ,FDR threatended to pack the court . But public opinion was against it . Still it served the purpose of intimidating the court . That is their real goal . They don't care about this case . They want to have used the tool to threaten to us it in other cases they care about .

Is that like managers playing the refs? What's wrong with that? The dufus does stuff like that all the time.

so you approve of the idea of court packing ? Turn around is a B . The number of justices has been 9 since 1869 . Tell you what you do . Try impeaching justices you don't like . After all there is precedence for that . Samuel Chase one of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence was impeached by the House after the election of 1800 for being a partisan . He was acquitted by the Senate . So the precedent is the independence of SCOTUS .or at least that is the theory . Chances are that SCOTUS was not going to hear the case anyway. It is just amusing how frightened the leftys are that they would .

you really think the WSJ is a loony tune site ? Their report was straight up without commentary . I did not cite it because it is subscription only .

I'm kind of nuetral over packing SCOTUS, because what goes around does come back to bite you, like getting rid of the fillibuster and a variety of other political tricks and traps. Sometimes I even hope congress never comes back from vacation, and then I think they should never have one. The only thing that saves my sanity, if you can call it that, is realizing we're all loony, and lucky to get anything positive done.

That and getting on my soapbox for a good healthy rant every now and then.

Did they forget there is a seperation for a reason?

Considering that appointment to the Supreme Court is for life and transcends political regimes, I think adding justices is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specter1

Considering that appointment to the Supreme Court is for life and transcends political regimes, I think adding justices is pointless.

---

No it usurpation of political power

All branches of government have their own tricks and traps to bend the rules in their favor. That's America.

Quote:

---

Got a link thats not a right wing loony noise machine?

---

Says the man who linked to crooksandliars.com on another thread.

Quote:

---

Is that like managers playing the refs? What's wrong with that? The dufus does stuff like that all the time.

---

Yes, and you complain about it all the time. So it's OK if a liberal dem does it but not if Trump does it?

Don't be foolish, you chunk rocks I chunk them back! You know the rules!

There are Rules?

Sure there are, you chunk a rock, I duck, I chunk a rock, it's entirely up to you to duck.

Quote:

---

Sure there are, you chunk a rock, I duck, I chunk a rock, it's entirely up to you to duck.

---

That was funny! You got my Saturday off to a good start. Have a great day, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Sure there are, you chunk a rock, I duck, I chunk a rock, it's entirely up to you to duck.

---

Hang on until I get my shanghi and we will see how well you duck. You rocka my roof I rocka your head

Specter1 makes a great point. sorta . It is because that justices of SCOTUS are lifers that this threat is compelling . Now if there were term limits and if SCOTUS rules could be over turned by the legislature and Executive then perhaps the equilibrium the framers envisioned could be realized. That wont happen without an article 5 convention . off my soap box.

YAWN...The framers didn't envision Moscow Mitch, or the dufus, or Bozo Barr either, or how much money they would control. Yeah great idea letting those bozos being able to overrule SCOTUS whenever they didn't like a ruling. You can put your Nikes back in their box Tom.