Democratic Senators "Warn" SCOTUS

[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.