Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drvoke

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: 'Heal' or face restructuring

Recommended Posts

 

Image result for Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: 'Heal' or face restructuring

 

 

 

Make no mistake, this isn't a mere warning, this is a threat. And one that we will make good on if they fail in their obligations to this country. Term limits, increasing the number of judges, more serious vetting. (Kavanaugh got off easy). We will put cons 'to the question' if need be.

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring/ar-AAFKHRU?ocid=spartanntp

(Full article at above link)

 

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.

 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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drvoke said:

 

Image result for Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: 'Heal' or face restructuring

 

 

 

Make no mistake, this isn't a mere warning, this is a threat. And one that we will make good on if they fail in their obligations to this country. Term limits, increasing the number of judges, more serious vetting. (Kavanaugh got off easy). We will put cons 'to the question' if need be.

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring/ar-AAFKHRU?ocid=spartanntp

(Full article at above link)

 

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.

 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.  An all-out declaration of war against the Republic by the Democrats.

 

The court has already been proven to be mostly a rubber stamp for governmental overreach against the rights of the people; but now that the court might actually rule in favor of a Constitutional right, the Demos are losing their already unhinged minds.

 

Let 'em follow through on their threats.  Civil War is imminent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drvoke said:

 

Image result for Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: 'Heal' or face restructuring

 

 

 

Make no mistake, this isn't a mere warning, this is a threat. And one that we will make good on if they fail in their obligations to this country. Term limits, increasing the number of judges, more serious vetting. (Kavanaugh got off easy). We will put cons 'to the question' if need be.

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring/ar-AAFKHRU?ocid=spartanntp

(Full article at above link)

 

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.

 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.

 

 

😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Wow.  An all-out declaration of war against the Republic by the Democrats.

 

The court has already been proven to be mostly a rubber stamp for governmental overreach against the rights of the people; but now that the court might actually rule in favor of a Constitutional right, the Demos are losing their already unhinged minds.

 

Let 'em follow through on their threats.  Civil War is imminent.

 

We are going to move forward with or without you. You have tried our patience for far too long. The NRA is not only corrupt, but at this point can be viewed as a sponsor of domestic terrorism. Enemy combatants are not entitled to 'rights'. You will move forward or we will grab you by the scruff of the neck and move you forward. It's your choice. (for a limited time only.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DeepBreath said:

😂

 

 

 

Image result for broken in gun safe

 

When the laughter turns to tears.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, drvoke said:

 

 

 

Image result for broken in gun safe

 

When the laughter turns to tears.

 

There will be a lot of tears because trying to subvert the constitution AGAIN will very likely lead to civil war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Wow.  An all-out declaration of war against the Republic by the Democrats.

 

The court has already been proven to be mostly a rubber stamp for governmental overreach against the rights of the people; but now that the court might actually rule in favor of a Constitutional right, the Demos are losing their already unhinged minds.

 

Let 'em follow through on their threats.  Civil War is imminent.

IF the Dems can win the Senate, they can certainly increase the number of judges however they wish. I doubt they would, because the Repubs would just do it when they gained control. It wouldn't accomplish anything, and SCOTUS will never overturn Roe v Wade, anyway.

 

Given the CRAY-CRAY sh|t that comes out of Tweety's mouth and his Twitter account every 10 minutes, there is virtually nothing any Dem could say that is gonna alarm any sane Voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeepBreath said:

There will be a lot of tears because trying to subvert the constitution AGAIN will very likely lead to civil war. 

 

 

No there won't. When push comes to shove, you nutters will surrender your weapons. Everyone outside of your perverse club is against you. Even world opinion views you as mentally defective primitives. We are shutting your hobby down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, drvoke said:

 

 

No there won't. When push comes to shove, you nutters will surrender your weapons. Everyone outside of your perverse club is against you. Even world opinion views you as mentally defective primitives. We are shutting your hobby down.

🤣Ya, no. That's not happening. That will NEVER happen in a free society. 

 

You better prepare for your imminent therapy to deal with the fact Americans are given the right to defend themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's HILARIOUS any chance the Supreme Court may actually back up the constitution, and Democrats lose their shit.😂

 

Shows you what kind of fascist, traitorous pigs the left has become. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

We are going to move forward with or without you. You have tried our patience for far too long. The NRA is not only corrupt, but at this point can be viewed as a sponsor of domestic terrorism. Enemy combatants are not entitled to 'rights'. You will move forward or we will grab you by the scruff of the neck and move you forward. It's your choice. (for a limited time only.)

 

 

WE have tried YOUR patience???  You arrogant, evil, ignorant liar, it is YOU who has tried OUR patience... and we have had ENOUGH.  We who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic, hereby put you on notice:  YOU are the enemy combatants who no longer deserve rights or freedoms.  Your threats are laughable, and you WILL be held to account.  

 

Live or die, you son of a bytch.... that is YOUR choice.

 

13529121_10209557345949650_5482166060598

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drvoke said:

No there won't. When push comes to shove, you nutters will surrender your weapons. Everyone outside of your perverse club is against you. Even world opinion views you as mentally defective primitives. We are shutting your hobby down.

People act like they don't have to pay taxes, aren't required to have liability insurance to drive, or do anything else that they wouldn't just wake up in the morning and decide all on their own to do.  "You can't take mah assault rifle!  I will never give it up!"  Sure.  Sure you will.  Just as soon as that's what the law says, that's what you'll do.  Just like you can't drive as fast as you want, or build bombs and boobytrap your property, or refuse to pay taxes, etc.  We have rules, and that's not a bad thing.  Without them we would surely not have anything close to the kind of science and technology we have today, medicine, computers, power, weapons, all of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come and try to take my guns you liberal asswipe… I dare ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demonrats MIGHT (though I doubt it) be able to get the number of SC justices expanded.  But they probably shouldn't let that be made into even a secondary issue in the coming election.

 

However, they should probably read Article III, Section 1;

 

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

 

Notice is clearly mentions supreme and inferior courts and does NOT limit their term.  So any thought of rotating SC justices off or establishing a term of service would require a Constitutional Amendment...and the probability of that happening is 0.0001%.  Federal judges are appointed and confirmed to a particular position in a particular court...not to the generic "federal bench".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • By teacher

    All lives matter.


  • By teacher

    Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...