Democrats threaten Supreme Court to issue liberal rulings or face court-packing

Breitbart ^ | 8/13/19 | Ken Klukowski

[david1292]

WASHINGTON, DC –Democrat presidential candidates and senators this week renewed their threats that unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues liberal rulings on the Second Amendment and other issues, Democrats will fundamentally restructure the nation’s highest court, a shocking threat to judicial independence not seen since the 1930s.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) filed an amicus brief (“friend of the court” legal brief) at the Supreme Court on Monday, joined by follow leftwing partisan Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), demanding that the Supreme Court back out of a case over one of the most restrictive gun control laws in America.

These leading Democrats also warned that if the justices proceed to issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, and if Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020, then they will fundamentally remake the High Court.

The liberal senators warn that “a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is motivated mainly by politics,” accusing the justices of issuing rulings through “bare partisan majorities.”

The Democrat senators – one of whom is running for president – told the Court to either “heal itself” or be “restructured” if Democrats take power.

Each of these Democrats fiercely opposed President Donald Trump’s nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with opposition to Kavanaugh sinking to a level of personal viciousness unprecedented in the history of American judicial confirmations.

[nathanbedford]

Democrats attempted to pack the Supreme Court.

They gave us a new verb, "Borking."

They attempted an "electronic lynching."

They tried to do away with the presumption of innocence.

These are only a few examples that come immediately to mind of the mischief committed by Democrats directed at the Supreme Court. But Democrat atrocities have not been directed only at the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and inferior courts have done mischief against the rule of law and against the very Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court for years has been a place where Democrats are bringing guns to a knife fight because the Republican appointees have either gone over to the dark side or, at best, they hold to their oaths and lay the facts down against the Constitution while Democrat appointees work backward to adjust the Constitution to accommodate a leftist political goal. A 5-4 majority means only that the Democrats need to pick off one originalist because they always have there four justices. An original justice plays by the rules while the four leftists are simply rigged.

Along the southern border, Democrat judges have been waging political war against the constitutionally authorized policies of the chief executive. In places like Ferguson and Baltimore, Democrat judges and Democrat prosecutors have perverted their office for political purposes and, worse, to demagogue race.

Leftist pressure groups, justifying themselves with race demagoguery or environmental alarmism, have reduced the federal court system to an arena of law warfare or, another new word given to us by the atrocities of the left, "lawfare."

When the rule of law breaks down no civil society can endure. No democratic republic can endure. No economy can prosper.

[ronnie raygun]

Beating the drums to rally their idiot army. They know they cant do this but like with other vomit spewings from the left the stupid that follow and cheer them on are at the ready to rally. The hords are much like the towns folk in the monty python movie when they decide a young girls fate as a witch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU&t=48s

[MayflowerMadam]

“it can be changed rather easily by the Senate.”

So these Rats are geniuses, right? Senate can change the makeup of SCOTUS. Senate is GOP now. So Trump should just say that HE is going to request the Senate to pack the court.

[GoldenPup]

Democrats threaten Supreme Court.

Democrats are amusing themselves by “abusing” themselves.

[ThunderSleeps]

Pure criminal gangster tactics. Nice court you got there, be a shame if someone packed it - full of presumably less talented and more political judges.

[Lockbox]

This attack on the federal judiciary threatens the appearance of judicial independence. If this separate branch of government continues, the citizens of the country will not recognize judges’ rulings nor any written laws by Congress.

[yuleeyahoo]

Why are Democrats so obsessed with packing?

[Sgt_Schultze]

If Trump wins again, and Republicans maintain control of the Senate, and perhaps regain the House, they should embrace this resolution, replay the democrat advocacy and proceed balls to the wall implementing this plan for judicial makeover. I’d also hope they would go on an impeachment wave by removing scores of federal judges whose roadblocking rulings have been overturned on appeal.

[a fool in paradise]

Trump should propose adding 4 more justices to the current court just to get the Left on record opposing such a notion.

[Redleg Duke]

You want to see what will happen if the Electoral College was eliminated?

We would be left with only two choices, submission and slavery, or a shooting war.

[philman_36]

No democratic republic can endure.

WHEW! It's a good thing then that America is a Constitutional Republic instead of a democratic republic, isn't it.

[unread]

"a shocking threat to judicial independence not seen since the 1930s."

A threat to "Judicial independence" my butt..!
Its an, in your face, threat to the Constitution and the American people.! The commies are embolden by the invasion from the south and each and every day we inch closer to all out civil war..

What..? Is there some kind of law that says a stinking lawyer (politician) can't commit treason..???

[RandallFlagg]

This has to do with the New York Rifle and Pistol Association’s case.

They know that they don’t have an argument, and are reduced to using desperate threats.

If one is only allowed to transport their firearm from their homes and to the range, and this somehow isn’t a violation of a constitutional right...

THEN.

That would also mean that one only has free speech when travelling from their homes to a range.

Only has freedom of religion.
Only is secure from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Only protected from cruel and unusual punishments.

One would have their civil rights safe ONLY in their homes, and while travelling to or from a gun range.

It’s an absurd argument that the tyrants know they’ll lose.

[dp0622]

WE’RE 90 PERCENT CLOSER TO 100 THAN EVEN 50 HERE!! :)

WHAT CIVIL WAR!!!???

You ALL underestimate where the under 40 crowd stands on issues and in another 10 years ANOTHER 20 or 30 percent of those who would have been willing to fight a civil war for the right will be dead.

We live an anachronism of belief systems here my FRiends.

And we will until we die because we were brought up in different times thank Goodness.

There will be no such civil war as those willing to fight it will either be dead or looking out nursing home windows.

[Wonder Warthog]

One wonders whether the poll implies the court is influenced by LEFTIST politics or RIGHTIST politics. I would bet the former.

[EEGator]

No more political royalty.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Real Americans who don’t hate America are going to have to “cowboy up” and stand up to the Socialist Democrats in 2020. Put on your big boy/girl pants and throw the ‘RATs out. They are the greatest threat to a free America.

[nathanbedford]

WHEW! It's a good thing then that America is a Constitutional Republic instead of a democratic republic, isn't it.

No it isn't. But it is a good thing that we are a representative democracy as well as a constitutional republic.

The document which defines our Republic, the Constitution, begins with, "we the People" making it clear beyond question that the ultimate legitimacy for the Republic is the consent of the people, hence it is a democratic republic as well as a constitutional republic.

There are some issues that the Constitution places beyond the will of a strict democracy, such as rights of the people set forth in the Bill of Rights. Respecting other matters, such as the composition of the House of Representatives and now the Senate, the democratic will of the people in their various states is supreme providing their choice complies with the constitutional mandate for the office.

There are many other issues about which the Constitution is silent and presumably those issues are retained by the people to do their will according to the ninth and 10th amendments-or at least it was so when originally written and adopted.

We were never set up to act as a pure democracy designed by Rousseau for all to come together in concert and render up a unanimous agreement on the issues of the day. Even with the technology given us by the Internet, we do not act as a plebiscite democracy, rather we act as a representative democracy as defined by the Constitution. But a democracy nonetheless.

Thus, it is quite proper to describe our system as a democratic republic keeping in mind that it is also a constitutional republic.

[TexasGurl24]

The Constitution doesn’t set the size of the Supreme Court. Congress could change it.

[TexasGurl24]

This brief was directed at Roberts. He’s a coward and it just might work.