Democratic Senators "Warn" SCOTUS

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on what I perceive to be a thinly veiled threat made by five Democrat senators to the SCOTUS over their hearing of the NYC gun law case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/gillibrand-slams-the-nra-federalist-society-in-supreme-court-filing.html

"The brief itself apparently alludes to the court-reform proposals, warning that the court is “not well,” and wondering whether it can “heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics,’” citing language from a recent Quinnipiac University poll, which found a majority of voters supported court restructuring."


Personally I'm surprised that this threat to pack the court hasn't gotten more attention and I'm disappointed that it hasn't been near universally condemned. As a secondary topic, what are your thoughts on the concept of court packing?


Lastly, I loathe Blumenthal and every political decision he makes reinforces this. I've heard the stories from my father and his friends about how they were treated when they returned from Vietnam. The fact that Blumenthal lied about serving there after it become "cool" to be a Vietnam vet tells me all I need to know about the man's character.

[GMDino]

(08-14-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm wondering what your thoughts are on what I perceive to be a thinly veiled threat made by five Democrat senators to the SCOTUS over their hearing of the NYC gun law case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/gillibrand-slams-the-nra-federalist-society-in-supreme-court-filing.html

"The brief itself apparently alludes to the court-reform proposals, warning that the court is “not well,” and wondering whether it can “heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics,’” citing language from a recent Quinnipiac University poll, which found a majority of voters supported court restructuring."


Personally I'm surprised that this threat to pack the court hasn't gotten more attention and I'm disappointed that it hasn't been near universally condemned.  As a secondary topic, what are your thoughts on the concept of court packing?


Lastly, I loathe Blumenthal and every political decision he makes reinforces this.  I've heard the stories from my father and his friends about how they were treated when they returned from Vietnam.  The fact that Blumenthal lied about serving there after it become "cool" to be a Vietnam vet tells me all I need to know about the man's character.

Last first: I'm not in favor of packing the courts.  That's just adding politics to something the same people say is becoming too political.

The other options mentioned in the story aren't that bad: term limits for example.

From the story, for context (bold mine):

Quote:But one contender, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, has diagnosed the problem as part of an “industrial-strength influence campaign” from conservative advocacy groups on the Republican-appointed justices of the Supreme Court — and is making the argument to the judges themselves.

The New York lawmaker this week signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in a high-profile Second Amendment case over now-defunct New York City laws and regulations, urging the justices to drop the matter. The brief was also signed by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, of Illinois.


The brief slams lobbying efforts by the National Rifle Association and the Federalist Society, an influential legal group with ties to the Trump administration and all of the court’s Republican-appointed justices. And it says that the court should not participate in what it calls a conservative “project.”


The argument comes as other presidential contenders, including South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, have criticized the increased politicization of the Supreme Court. But unlike arguments made by other candidates, the critique quietly put forward by Gillibrand was delivered directly to the justices.

The brief itself apparently alludes to the court-reform proposals, warning that the court is “not well,” and wondering whether it can “heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics,’” citing language from a recent Quinnipiac University poll, which found a majority of voters supported court restructuring.
Democratic proposals to reform the court have included expanding the size of the panel as well as shifting the way the judges are selected.

Besides Buttigieg and Gillibrand, candidates Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke have signaled an openness to adding justices to the court. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, the race’s two leaders, have said they oppose such an expansion, however. Sanders, though, has floated support for term limits or instituting a system in which justices are rotated to appeals courts.

So, to me, it's more of a claim against the conservative groups that are tied to the justices who would rule on the case than a slam on the justices themselves except that they feel the justices shouldn't be ruling on something they are tired too very closely.

Quote:Another friend-of-the-court brief, limited to the case’s legal issues, was signed by 139 members of the House of Representatives, including Reps. Seth Moulton and Tim Ryan, who are also running for the Democratic nomination.

So this made news because Gillibrand signed off on it and it went at the justices.  Not sure if there is a valid point there or not as I don't know if the justices are directly tied to the groups or if it's just more "conservatives want conservatives and we don't trust them".

I have more a problem with her saying she supported the NRA in the past (that's in the article also) and now claiming she regrets that.  No, you changed for votes.  It's ok to say the NRA as a group made of members has a good cause and still criticize them when they go against your values.  Assuming you have values.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-14-2019, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Last first: I'm not in favor of packing the courts.  That's just adding politics to something the same people say is becoming too political.

Wow. I agree with GMDino on something. 


I know, I know. It's not the first time, but it happens sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo rarely ...

[GMDino]

(08-14-2019, 12:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Wow. I agree with GMDino on something. 


I know, I know. It's not the first time, but it happens sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo rarely ...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-14-2019, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Last first: I'm not in favor of packing the courts.  That's just adding politics to something the same people say is becoming too political.

Well reasoned and stated.

Quote:The other options mentioned in the story aren't that bad: term limits for example.

From the story, for context (bold mine):

I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not what this Threat to the Court (see what I did there?) brief states.

Quote:So, to me, it's more of a claim against the conservative groups that are tied to the justices who would rule on the case than a slam on the justices themselves except that they feel the justices shouldn't be ruling on something they are tired too very closely.

I don't see it that way.  I think a brief summary of the case in question would help.  Please forgive any mistakes or omissions in my summation, they will not be intentional.

1. NYC passes law that states gun owners in the city can only take the gun from their city residence directly to one of four (five?) gun ranges in the city and back.  They are not permitted to take then anywhere else or they are breaking the law.

2. Law is challenged in court and meets with predictable results in New York state court.  Appeals occur and SCOTUS eventually agrees to hear the case.

3.  NYC then files a brief stating to SCOTUS that, essentially, "we're going to change the law now so no need for you guys to review it.  SCOTUS takes dim view of this, IMO obvious, attempt to avoid their hearing this case and states case will go forward.

4.  NY state legislature then passes law preempting the NYC gun law, another brief is filed claiming "mootness" (the case no longer matters as it's subject matter no longer exists).

5.  NYC goes further and changes law completely, makes same argument as #4 above. 

6.  Democratic Senators warn court about continuing with case as it will be "politically motivated" if they do and warn that they could pack the court in the future if their warning (threat) isn't heeded.

The complains about the NRA and other 2A groups is window dressing on their threat.  Of course the NRA and other 2A groups support a lawsuit against a gun law they consider highly unconstitutional. 

Quote:So this made news because Gillibrand signed off on it and it went at the justices.  Not sure if there is a valid point there or not as I don't know if the justices are directly tied to the groups or if it's just more "conservatives want conservatives and we don't trust them".

Not just Gillibrand.  Also, it made news because it's essentially mafia tactics.  "Hey you got a really nice Supreme Court here.  It'd be a shame if someone came along and packed it."

Quote:I have more a problem with her saying she supported the NRA in the past (that's in the article also) and now claiming she regrets that.  No, you changed for votes.  It's ok to say the NRA as a group made of members has a good cause and still criticize them when they go against your values.  Assuming you have values.

Much like Obama flipping on same sex marriage, but I digress.

What you're actually seeing here is complete fear.  Anti2A activists, and Senators, are concerned that this case will be the crowbar needed for the SCOTUS to determine that 2A impacting laws be subject to "strict scrutiny".  It essentially breaks down like this;

Currently lawsuits against gun control laws have to prove in court that said law impacts against their rights under the second amendment.  Under a "strict scrutiny" standard the opposite is true, a lawsuit against a gun control law puts the onus on the defenders of said law to prove their law is not unconstitutional.  What this will almost certainly do is methodically eliminate all gun restrictions at the state level such as "assault weapons" bans, standard capacity magazine bans etc.

This fear is the reason for this brief/threat.  They are terrified of what might happen if SCOTUS continues with this case despite the obvious machinations from New York City and State to avoid having the case heard.

[CJD]

I dislike the coin flip of who happens to be President when a court justice, one of the few lifetime appointments in our country's government, happens to die or retire makes for some really uncomfortable discussions like "RBG can't retire or die until we have a Democrat in the Oval Office" or, even worse, "I hope RBG dies or retires while there's a Republican in the Oval Office" and similar discussions.

The politicization of the Judicial branch is pretty unavoidable at this point, with freedoms such as abortion and gun rights being hotly debated topics that judges will inevitably have an opinion on, should a case ever reach their courtroom.

I don't know what this warning specifically threatens, but I don't think reform to the supreme court's make up is necessarily a horrifying thing. Term limits are something I've been hoping they'd add to Congress seats for a while now. Adding them to Supreme Court chairs wouldn't be the worst thing either.

Now, I understand talk like this is very threatening to constitutionalists (if that's what you'd like to call them), but I've never had the opinion that the Founding Fathers were infallible or specifically insightful enough to foresee problems that may occur 300 years into the future. So reform to long standing practices in our government isn't all that scary to me, as long as they are reasonable and logical. And applying term limits to a courtroom that handles the most high profile cases in our country doesn't seem unreasonable or illogical to me.

As for packing the courts, I don't see the point and I think it adds an unnecessary amount of bias in its own right. There's no reason to add more justices. Just have them set on terms is fine with me.

[6andcounting]

This totally won't backfire and allow Trump at appoint even more Supreme Court Justices.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-14-2019, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 1. NYC passes law that states gun owners in the city can only take the gun from their city residence directly to one of four (five?) gun ranges in the city and back.  They are not permitted to take then anywhere else or they are breaking the law.

If it is allowed to stand, and is found constitutional, look for Georgia to decide there are only four or five places where you are allowed to vote, and none of them will be near areas heavily filled with Democrats.

Then there will become law-backed "safe spaces" in some cities as those are special places where you can't use your full freedom of speech rights.

Creating extremely limited areas where your constitutional rights are allowed to be used would be a terrible precedent. Ultimately why it will fail as an attempt.

[BakertheBeast]

(08-14-2019, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well reasoned and stated.



I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not what this Threat to the Court (see what I did there?) brief states.




I don't see it that way.  I think a brief summary of the case in question would help.  Please forgive any mistakes or omissions in my summation, they will not be intentional.

1. NYC passes law that states gun owners in the city can only take the gun from their city residence directly to one of four (five?) gun ranges in the city and back.  They are not permitted to take then anywhere else or they are breaking the law.

2. Law is challenged in court and meets with predictable results in New York state court.  Appeals occur and SCOTUS eventually agrees to hear the case.

3.  NYC then files a brief stating to SCOTUS that, essentially, "we're going to change the law now so no need for you guys to review it.  SCOTUS takes dim view of this, IMO obvious, attempt to avoid their hearing this case and states case will go forward.

4.  NY state legislature then passes law preempting the NYC gun law, another brief is filed claiming "mootness" (the case no longer matters as it's subject matter no longer exists).

5.  NYC goes further and changes law completely, makes same argument as #4 above. 

6.  Democratic Senators warn court about continuing with case as it will be "politically motivated" if they do and warn that they could pack the court in the future if their warning (threat) isn't heeded.

The complains about the NRA and other 2A groups is window dressing on their threat.  Of course the NRA and other 2A groups support a lawsuit against a gun law they consider highly unconstitutional. 




Not just Gillibrand.  Also, it made news because it's essentially mafia tactics.  "Hey you got a really nice Supreme Court here.  It'd be a shame if someone came along and packed it."


Much like Obama flipping on same sex marriage, but I digress.

What you're actually seeing here is complete fear.  Anti2A activists, and Senators, are concerned that this case will be the crowbar needed for the SCOTUS to determine that 2A impacting laws be subject to "strict scrutiny".  It essentially breaks down like this;

Currently lawsuits against gun control laws have to prove in court that said law impacts against their rights under the second amendment.  Under a "strict scrutiny" standard the opposite is true, a lawsuit against a gun control law puts the onus on the defenders of said law to prove their law is not unconstitutional.  What this will almost certainly do is methodically eliminate all gun restrictions at the state level such as "assault weapons" bans, standard capacity magazine bans etc.

This fear is the reason for this brief/threat.  They are terrified of what might happen if SCOTUS continues with this case despite the obvious machinations from New York City and State to avoid having the case heard.

I know what you mean. Much like Lindsay Graham flipping on describing Trumps character. I digressed also.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2019, 06:14 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: I know what you mean. Much like Lindsay Graham flipping on describing Trumps character. I digressed also.

You must think there are a lot of Lindsey Graham fans here.  

[Belsnickel]

Court packing, and the the threat thereof, is a bad move. Carte blanche. No exceptions. They aren't wrong that it would appear politically motivated for the court to continue to hear the case after it has been rendered moot. It would be the action of an activist judiciary. That doesn't excuse the threat, just pointing out that the reason for not being happy with SCOTUS is pretty well founded.

Just my two cents.

[*michaelsean*]

20 or 25 year term limits would be fine by me. Or an age limit of 80 or 85. I think either would take an amendment though. Packing the court wouldn't, but I'm against that.

I disagree with RBG often, but I hold no animosity toward her. She seems quite honorable, and I wish she would have retired during the Obama admin. The thought of someone in frail health holding on to the job until the next Democrat kind of sucks if that is indeed what she feels she has to do. It's admirable, but sad that she has to.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2019, 09:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Court packing, and the the threat thereof, is a bad move. Carte blanche. No exceptions. They aren't wrong that it would appear politically motivated for the court to continue to hear the case after it has been rendered moot. It would be the action of an activist judiciary. That doesn't excuse the threat, just pointing out that the reason for not being happy with SCOTUS is pretty well founded.

Just my two cents.

Well now Roe V Wade was moot.     JK, I agree.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 09:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 20 or 25 year term limits would be fine by me. Or an age limit of 80 or 85. I think either would take an amendment though. Packing the court wouldn't, but I'm against that.

I disagree with RBG often, but I hold no animosity toward her. She seems quite honorable, and I wish she would have retired during the Obama admin. The thought of someone in frail health holding on to the job until the next Democrat kind of sucks if that is indeed what she feels she has to do. It's admirable, but sad that she has to.

I'm against term limits for the court. Anything that creates a situation where it is known when a Justice will be leaving the bench creates a more political judiciary.

As for RBG, one of my favorite things in SCOTUS lore is how RBG and Scalia were great friends. She really is an example in many ways, no matter your ideological leanings. I truthfully felt the same way about Scalia, even though I disagreed with him more than I agreed.

[GMDino]

(08-15-2019, 09:40 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You must think there are a lot of Lindsey Graham fans here.  

There are a few. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2019, 09:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They aren't wrong that it would appear politically motivated for the court to continue to hear the case after it has been rendered moot. It would be the action of an activist judiciary. That doesn't excuse the threat, just pointing out that the reason for not being happy with SCOTUS is pretty well founded.

Just my two cents.

I couldn't disagree with you more.  They fought this case tooth and nail before SCOTUS agreed to hear it.  Changing the law and claiming mootness is a blatant and underhanded attempt to prevent the case from being heard as they clearly know they will lose.  Additionally, what would prevent them from later reenacting a similar, or the exact same law, in a years time and starting the process all over again?  I'm a bit disappointed that you're buying this shortsighted argument.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I couldn't disagree with you more.  They fought this case tooth and nail before SCOTUS agreed to hear it.  Changing the law and claiming mootness is a blatant and underhanded attempt to prevent the case from being heard as they clearly know they will lose.  Additionally, what would prevent them from later reenacting a similar, or the exact same law, in a years time and starting the process all over again?  I'm a bit disappointed that you're buying this shortsighted argument.

I don't disagree with anything you say here. All I am saying that if things are done as they typically are in our judiciary system, then this should be dismissed for mootness. If they continue to hear the case, then that is taking on the role of an activist judiciary, something that should not happen the way our system is set up.

I should add that I find it shortsighted to favor judicial activism for a cause you support over how our government is intended to function. People knocking down the guardrails of our democracy, because that is what it is, in order to get their way is why we are in this mess.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2019, 12:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree with anything you say here. All I am saying that if things are done as they typically are in our judiciary system, then this should be dismissed for mootness. If they continue to hear the case, then that is taking on the role of an activist judiciary, something that should not happen the way our system is set up.

I should add that I find it shortsighted to favor judicial activism for a cause you support over how our government is intended to function. People knocking down the guardrails of our democracy, because that is what it is, in order to get their way is why we are in this mess.

Except it's not judicial activism for the following reason; SCOTUS decisions have implications far beyond the original ruling.  Through judicial precedent they guide lower court decisions on similar matters.  Thus, making a ruling on this law, rendered moot by shadiness or no, will affect rulings on all future laws of the same stripe.  Additionally, you're not acknowledging the extreme lengths necessary to get a case heard by SCOTUS. The state and city of New York are the only ones playing politics here.  By laying down their arms at the final hour they are acknowledging that they not only passed a blatantly unconstitutional law, but vigorously defended such a law for years before the SCOTUS agreed to hear it.  Such blatant and naked gaming of the system should not be allowed or rewarded.  I wholeheartedly disagree that this is an example of judicial activism and it's not because I support the cause of the plaintiff.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2019, 12:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it's not judicial activism for the following reason; SCOTUS decisions have implications far beyond the original ruling.  Through judicial precedent they guide lower court decisions on similar matters.  Thus, making a ruling on this law, rendered moot by shadiness or no, will affect rulings on all future laws of the same stripe.  Additionally, you're not acknowledging the extreme lengths necessary to get a case heard by SCOTUS. The state and city of New York are the only ones playing politics here.  By laying down their arms at the final hour they are acknowledging that they not only passed a blatantly unconstitutional law, but vigorously defended such a law for years before the SCOTUS agreed to hear it.  Such blatant and naked gaming of the system should not be allowed or rewarded.  I wholeheartedly disagree that this is an example of judicial activism and it's not because I support the cause of the plaintiff.

Continuing to hear a case after it has been rendered moot is stepping outside of the bounds of judicial norms due to the implications of the case and as such it is judicial activism. When these norms are broken because they want to rule on the case, that is judicial activism. It further degrades the integrity of the judicial system. I understand the extreme lengths necessary to have a case heard, but that doesn't change things.

By not hearing the case, there is no rewarding of the defendants. The law has been stricken, everyone can see what is going on. It isn't surprising that the defendants are playing politics because they are political entities. The courts, however, are not. SCOTUS is not supposed to play politics and hearing a case that is moot is doing just that.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-14-2019, 02:14 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I dislike the coin flip of who happens to be President when a court justice, one of the few lifetime appointments in our country's government, happens to die or retire makes for some really uncomfortable discussions like "RBG can't retire or die until we have a Democrat in the Oval Office" or, even worse, "I hope RBG dies or retires while there's a Republican in the Oval Office" and similar discussions.

The politicization of the Judicial branch is pretty unavoidable at this point, with freedoms such as abortion and gun rights being hotly debated topics that judges will inevitably have an opinion on, should a case ever reach their courtroom.

I don't know what this warning specifically threatens, but I don't think reform to the supreme court's make up is necessarily a horrifying thing. Term limits are something I've been hoping they'd add to Congress seats for a while now. Adding them to Supreme Court chairs wouldn't be the worst thing either.

Now, I understand talk like this is very threatening to constitutionalists (if that's what you'd like to call them), but I've never had the opinion that the Founding Fathers were infallible or specifically insightful enough to foresee problems that may occur 300 years into the future. So reform to long standing practices in our government isn't all that scary to me, as long as they are reasonable and logical. And applying term limits to a courtroom that handles the most high profile cases in our country doesn't seem unreasonable or illogical to me.

As for packing the courts, I don't see the point and I think it adds an unnecessary amount of bias in its own right. There's no reason to add more justices. Just have them set on terms is fine with me.

I feel the same way. I hate how political the Supreme Court has become and I can't think of a way we can make it less so. If we made it an elected office, it would be even more political.

Besides term limits (which I, too am in favor of), what other reforms can be made that will restrict the politicization of the Supreme Court?