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

Somehow, I don't think that will produce the desired result....

So, the RI Senator is whining about a not-yet ruling about NYC? That's kinda stupid.

easy said:

So, the RI Senator is whining about a not-yet ruling about NYC? That's kinda stupid.

Click to expand...

And without the Senate in the bargain.

He's counting his chickens before he even has the eggs.

Somehow I don't think threatening the court is a good idea.

Make no mistake, CJ Roberts is very concerned about the institutional standing of the court. That's one reason why the court hasn't taken any substantial gun cases lately.

Elections have consequences.

Vote wisely in 2020 to secure our judicial future for decades with case rulings to last for generations.

bds said:

Elections have consequences.

Vote wisely in 2020 to secure our judicial future for decades with case rulings to last for generations.

Click to expand...

Once a Justice gets confirmed, he becomes an independent agent. He has lifetime tenure, and doesn't have to answer to anyone. Historically, Justices have often strayed from what was expected when they were appointed.

So don't get your hopes too high.

Aim1 said:

Democrats are saying if a pro-2nd Amendment ruling happens they want to pack the US Supreme Court or other such actions.

Click to expand...

I think you can lose the "if" clause. Packing the Supreme Court is a major goal of both political parties right now and into the foreseeable future.

Wonder what they’d say if Trump decided to try to pack the court.

This is an insanely bad idea for everyone, hopefully their are enough sane people left to stop such an idiot idea, but who knows. If they did succeed the second amendment would be eroded to nothing at a much faster pace that the current erosion.

When it comes to gun rights appointing conservatives to Supreme Court guarantees nothing.

The judge will just order the bailiff to clear the court if they get out of hand. This is a non-starter! And as stated above this has been the goal of both parties for years.

bds said:

Elections have consequences.

Vote wisely in 2020 to secure our judicial future for decades with case rulings to last for generations.

Click to expand...

And remember it is not just the one....but many around the nation.....amazing these people are never around with the 9th decisions.

Whole lot of crazy going on as of late

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

Just hope SCOTUS makes future gun rights cases clearly in favor of the RKBA and not without qualifying blather that has negative unintended consequences. The Heller- Scalia-Kenney nexus makes me fearful of such.

toivo said:

I think you can lose the "if" clause. Packing the Supreme Court is a major goal of both political parties right now and into the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

We need to hope the people today react as poorly to it as they did 80 years ago when FDR tried to pack the court.

toivo said:

Packing the Supreme Court is a major goal of both political parties right now and into the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

"Packing" the court could mean different things. One is replacing Justices as the seats become vacant, which is the normal course. The classic sense of "packing" is what FDR tried to do, which is to increase the number of Justices and appoint new ones that would be compliant to an agenda. That approach generally has very little support in the country. For the Democrats to "pack" the Court, they would have to (a) win the White House, (b) win control of the Senate and keep control of the House, (c) abolish the filibuster in the Senate, and (d) have unanimity in their own caucus in the Senate. That's a tall order.

Spats McGee said:

I'm not sure "packing the court" means what you think it means. Or am I missing some humor here? (A very real possibility, I know.)

Click to expand...

I was going for some jailhouse humor, I used to do prisoner transports. 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.

I believe this is directly aimed at Dred Justice Roberts as a similar thing to him was done several months prior to the PPACA (Obamacare) case and he apparently switched his vote.

Wish the founders had stipulated the size of the Court in the Constitution. Its only natural for each ruling party to select replacement justices sympathetic to their agenda, but adding a bunch of new seats each time the pendulum swings to try to tilt it in your favor is sickening.

"Good morning USA! Its July 9th, 2077. In our top story, the Supreme court has upheld a lower court decision by a vote of 415 to 112 that human-android hybrids may recharge their fusion cells in public......."

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.