Dems threaten SCOTUS over upcoming 2A case

[The Annoyed Man]

I know those Justices are cut from better stuff than me, but if I sat on that bench I'd rule against whatever the Dems wanted just because of their threat

The problem is that the court won’t likely get a chance to address it. The court does not have the constitutional authority to set how many justices will be seated. That authority resides solely with Congress....which can also override the veto of an uncooperative POTUS.

OTH.... nobody but POTUS has the authority to nominate a SCOTUS justice. So no matter what congress does during the Trump administration to try to pack the court, he can ignore them.

[anygunanywhere]

The socialist commie (redundant) judges on the court don't mind being threatened because they are probably part of this crap. The (not really) conservative majority so far has not impressed me especially John Roberts.

Why would socialist commies be offended by socialist commies whining about the court and threats to make the court more socialist and communist?

[anygunanywhere]

Liberal Justices Are Still Notching Victories Despite Conservative Supreme Court

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh styled Justice Neil Gorsuch the “crossover sensation” of the court’s 2017-2018 term. The justice played to type again this year, joining his liberal colleagues to form a 5-4 majority in four cases.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/14/scot ... rossovers/

[Papa_Tiger]

Liberal Justices Are Still Notching Victories Despite Conservative Supreme Court

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh styled Justice Neil Gorsuch the “crossover sensation” of the court’s 2017-2018 term. The justice played to type again this year, joining his liberal colleagues to form a 5-4 majority in four cases.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/14/scot ... rossovers/

Based on the descriptions of the cases that Gorsuch joined, I have to say I agree with the outcome and I have no love of most of what the "liberal bloc" of the SCotUS stands for. As much as I loved Scalia, I disagreed with him on some fundamental issues, particularly certain 4th Amendment cases. So I can't say that I'm surprised when many of the cases that Gorsuch agreed with the "liberal bloc" on had certain libertarian arguments.

[RoyGBiv]

Liberal Justices Are Still Notching Victories Despite Conservative Supreme Court

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh styled Justice Neil Gorsuch the “crossover sensation” of the court’s 2017-2018 term. The justice played to type again this year, joining his liberal colleagues to form a 5-4 majority in four cases.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/14/scot ... rossovers/

Gorsuch's decisions siding with the lib Justices are better defined as libertarian.
I like Gorsuch WAY better than Kavanaugh. Was rooting for Kethledge to be nominated.

[jerry_r60]

As was stated earlier, manipulating the number of Justices is how they can remake the court. Here is some quick history (from https://www.history.com/news/7-things-y ... reme-court)

2. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

Okay, they have a plan and it's Constitutionally allowed. Best of luck to them....having an overwhelming socialist SCOTUS doesn't mean 600 million firearms are going to be willingly turned in or confiscated.

Yeah, that's a separate question. Was just responding to your question about how they can remake the court if they had control of the WH and congress.

[mayor]

As was stated earlier, manipulating the number of Justices is how they can remake the court. Here is some quick history (from https://www.history.com/news/7-things-y ... reme-court)

2. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

Okay, they have a plan and it's Constitutionally allowed. Best of luck to them....having an overwhelming socialist SCOTUS doesn't mean 600 million firearms are going to be willingly turned in or confiscated.

That assumes that the some of the owners are willing to take a stand. I've said for a long time that, "welfare checks," anytime EMS goes to a home is the likely way it will start. If the property owner doesn't give them up voluntarily, and weapons are found subsequent to a search, the owner becomes ineligible for XXX government services (Medicare/Medicade, EMS service, etc.,etc..).

The only way that doesn't work is if LEO, as a whole refuses to pursue, and EMS/Fire, as a whole, refuse to ask/pursue. If jobs and benefits are on the line, are there enough with the character to step beyond political association (Dem/Rep) and support the Constitution? I am doubtful, at best.

Desperate people do desperate things. If something goes down, XXX government service won't be worth the oral diarrhea it took to promise it.

[ralewis]

Will any of the liberal Justices speak out against this?

Would be fun to hear RGB unload on these traitors.

RBG has actually said "9 is a good number" when asked about this in the relatively recent past. So she definitely isn't a fan.

[KLB]

I know those Justices are cut from better stuff than me, but if I sat on that bench I'd rule against whatever the Dems wanted just because of their threat

I don't know about "better stuff," whatever that might mean. But my thoughts went down a related line. We might hope that, to discourage such thinking by Democrats, Democrat judges might switch their votes on certain politically charged cases to make the cases unanimous or nearly so.

We might hope, but we best not expect. Also, the case(s) would have to be carefully selected. I'm not sure what the criteria would be, and getting different judges to agree on a case, even if they agreed with the idea, might be impossible.

As it is, we'll probably muck along, and we'll get through this discord with our republic intact, or we won't.