One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court
Nov 12, 2019 09:32:37   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court

By
Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist
September 3, 2019 at 2:45 p.m. EDT

In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused President Trump of showing “a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn’t always bend to his wishes” after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes — threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.

The threat came over the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge to New York City’s restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can t***sport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

What is not acceptable is openly threatening the court with political retribution if it does not rule a certain way. That is precisely what these Senate Democrats did. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured to reduce the influence of politics.’ ” As all 53 Senate Republicans wrote in a letter to the court last week, “the implication is as plain as day: Dismiss the case, or we’ll pack the Court.”


Talk about disdain for an independent judiciary! Democrats are not simply criticizing a ruling they disagree with; they are preemptively threatening the court before a case is even taken up. Can you imagine if Trump issued such a preemptive threat? Heads would explode. And in contrast to Trump’s impulsive Twitter rants, the Democrats issued their threat in a carefully crafted legal brief submitted to the court. They thought this through and decided that blackmailing the Supreme Court was a good idea.

Not only was their brief inappropriate; it also was brimming with cognitive dissonance. The Democrats accused the Supreme Court of being too political, but their plan to “reduce the influence of politics” on the court is to have senators order the justices how to decide or face political consequences? What utter hypocrisy.

Keep in mind that these are not backbenchers. Among the signatories to the brief is Durbin, the second-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate. He should know that the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government that does not answer to the Senate, much less its minority.


The Democrats justify their unprecedented intimidation tactics by pointing out that since 2005, the court has issued 78 5-to-4 or 5-to-3 opinions in which Republican appointees provided all five v**es in the majority. “With bare partisan majorities,” they declared, “the Court has influenced sensitive areas like v****g rights, partisan gerrymandering, dark money, union power, regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights and discrimination in the workplace. Every single time, the corporate and Republican political interests prevailed.”

Give me a break. In each of the cases to which they object, the liberal bloc v**ed in unison as well. Were they behaving as a “partisan” minority? Senate Democrats would have no problem with these 5-to-4 decisions if they had been decided by a liberal majority. Their complaint is not with the rise of “political influence” on the court, but rather with their lack of political influence on the court.

The judicial left has gone off the deep end because it is losing its battle for an activist liberal court. When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, they saw a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift the ideological direction of the court for a generation. By appointing two conservative justices, Trump has thwarted those dreams. And now they are worried, due to concerns over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, that Trump might get a third appointment. So, many Democrats are now openly talking about adding more justices if they gain power.


Those threats will backfire, because they dramatically raise the stakes in the 2020 e******n. In 2016, over a quarter of Trump v**ers said that the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision to support him. With Trump already having secured a conservative majority on the court, his ability to appoint justices was shaping up to be a less powerful argument this time around. But now that Democrats have threatened to pack the court with liberal judges if they win the White House and the Senate, the Supreme Court will once again be front and center. For the president, this is a massive stroke of luck.

Reply
Nov 12, 2019 09:44:25   #
peg w
 
I doubt this being a stroke of luck. Trumps appointments are really bad, like white r****ts and some one who never set foot in a cort for a lifetime appointment. Rather than oack the cort, the Democrats should impeach the jurists, if they ever win back the senate.

Reply
Nov 12, 2019 09:48:57   #
Dwight Logan
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court

By
Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist
September 3, 2019 at 2:45 p.m. EDT

In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused President Trump of showing “a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn’t always bend to his wishes” after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes — threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.

The threat came over the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge to New York City’s restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can t***sport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

What is not acceptable is openly threatening the court with political retribution if it does not rule a certain way. That is precisely what these Senate Democrats did. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured to reduce the influence of politics.’ ” As all 53 Senate Republicans wrote in a letter to the court last week, “the implication is as plain as day: Dismiss the case, or we’ll pack the Court.”


Talk about disdain for an independent judiciary! Democrats are not simply criticizing a ruling they disagree with; they are preemptively threatening the court before a case is even taken up. Can you imagine if Trump issued such a preemptive threat? Heads would explode. And in contrast to Trump’s impulsive Twitter rants, the Democrats issued their threat in a carefully crafted legal brief submitted to the court. They thought this through and decided that blackmailing the Supreme Court was a good idea.

Not only was their brief inappropriate; it also was brimming with cognitive dissonance. The Democrats accused the Supreme Court of being too political, but their plan to “reduce the influence of politics” on the court is to have senators order the justices how to decide or face political consequences? What utter hypocrisy.

Keep in mind that these are not backbenchers. Among the signatories to the brief is Durbin, the second-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate. He should know that the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government that does not answer to the Senate, much less its minority.


The Democrats justify their unprecedented intimidation tactics by pointing out that since 2005, the court has issued 78 5-to-4 or 5-to-3 opinions in which Republican appointees provided all five v**es in the majority. “With bare partisan majorities,” they declared, “the Court has influenced sensitive areas like v****g rights, partisan gerrymandering, dark money, union power, regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights and discrimination in the workplace. Every single time, the corporate and Republican political interests prevailed.”

Give me a break. In each of the cases to which they object, the liberal bloc v**ed in unison as well. Were they behaving as a “partisan” minority? Senate Democrats would have no problem with these 5-to-4 decisions if they had been decided by a liberal majority. Their complaint is not with the rise of “political influence” on the court, but rather with their lack of political influence on the court.

The judicial left has gone off the deep end because it is losing its battle for an activist liberal court. When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, they saw a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift the ideological direction of the court for a generation. By appointing two conservative justices, Trump has thwarted those dreams. And now they are worried, due to concerns over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, that Trump might get a third appointment. So, many Democrats are now openly talking about adding more justices if they gain power.


Those threats will backfire, because they dramatically raise the stakes in the 2020 e******n. In 2016, over a quarter of Trump v**ers said that the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision to support him. With Trump already having secured a conservative majority on the court, his ability to appoint justices was shaping up to be a less powerful argument this time around. But now that Democrats have threatened to pack the court with liberal judges if they win the White House and the Senate, the Supreme Court will once again be front and center. For the president, this is a massive stroke of luck.
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the... (show quote)



These democrats have pointed their fingers at the Supreme Court. A I have pointed out before "When you point your finger at others you are also pointing another against God and three fingers toward yourself."

Reply
 
 
Nov 12, 2019 09:52:07   #
bahmer
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court

By
Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist
September 3, 2019 at 2:45 p.m. EDT

In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused President Trump of showing “a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn’t always bend to his wishes” after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes — threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.

The threat came over the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge to New York City’s restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can t***sport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

What is not acceptable is openly threatening the court with political retribution if it does not rule a certain way. That is precisely what these Senate Democrats did. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured to reduce the influence of politics.’ ” As all 53 Senate Republicans wrote in a letter to the court last week, “the implication is as plain as day: Dismiss the case, or we’ll pack the Court.”


Talk about disdain for an independent judiciary! Democrats are not simply criticizing a ruling they disagree with; they are preemptively threatening the court before a case is even taken up. Can you imagine if Trump issued such a preemptive threat? Heads would explode. And in contrast to Trump’s impulsive Twitter rants, the Democrats issued their threat in a carefully crafted legal brief submitted to the court. They thought this through and decided that blackmailing the Supreme Court was a good idea.

Not only was their brief inappropriate; it also was brimming with cognitive dissonance. The Democrats accused the Supreme Court of being too political, but their plan to “reduce the influence of politics” on the court is to have senators order the justices how to decide or face political consequences? What utter hypocrisy.

Keep in mind that these are not backbenchers. Among the signatories to the brief is Durbin, the second-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate. He should know that the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government that does not answer to the Senate, much less its minority.


The Democrats justify their unprecedented intimidation tactics by pointing out that since 2005, the court has issued 78 5-to-4 or 5-to-3 opinions in which Republican appointees provided all five v**es in the majority. “With bare partisan majorities,” they declared, “the Court has influenced sensitive areas like v****g rights, partisan gerrymandering, dark money, union power, regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights and discrimination in the workplace. Every single time, the corporate and Republican political interests prevailed.”

Give me a break. In each of the cases to which they object, the liberal bloc v**ed in unison as well. Were they behaving as a “partisan” minority? Senate Democrats would have no problem with these 5-to-4 decisions if they had been decided by a liberal majority. Their complaint is not with the rise of “political influence” on the court, but rather with their lack of political influence on the court.

The judicial left has gone off the deep end because it is losing its battle for an activist liberal court. When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, they saw a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift the ideological direction of the court for a generation. By appointing two conservative justices, Trump has thwarted those dreams. And now they are worried, due to concerns over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, that Trump might get a third appointment. So, many Democrats are now openly talking about adding more justices if they gain power.


Those threats will backfire, because they dramatically raise the stakes in the 2020 e******n. In 2016, over a quarter of Trump v**ers said that the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision to support him. With Trump already having secured a conservative majority on the court, his ability to appoint justices was shaping up to be a less powerful argument this time around. But now that Democrats have threatened to pack the court with liberal judges if they win the White House and the Senate, the Supreme Court will once again be front and center. For the president, this is a massive stroke of luck.
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the... (show quote)


Amen and Amen

Reply
Nov 12, 2019 09:53:03   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
peg w wrote:
I doubt this being a stroke of luck. Trumps appointments are really bad, like white r****ts and some one who never set foot in a cort for a lifetime appointment. Rather than oack the cort, the Democrats should impeach the jurists, if they ever win back the senate.


E******ns matter.

Reply
Nov 12, 2019 09:54:16   #
hdjimv Loc: South Dakota
 
peg w wrote:
I doubt this being a stroke of luck. Trumps appointments are really bad, like white r****ts and some one who never set foot in a cort for a lifetime appointment. Rather than oack the cort, the Democrats should impeach the jurists, if they ever win back the senate.



Reply
Nov 12, 2019 10:01:50   #
F.D.R.
 
Peg, It seems that your rage is impairing your keyboard sk**ls. Calm down, you'll live longer. Heck, you might even make it through Nikki Haley's 2nd term as the first female president.

Reply
 
 
Nov 12, 2019 10:21:06   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
F.D.R. wrote:
Peg, It seems that your rage is impairing your keyboard sk**ls. Calm down, you'll live longer. Heck, you might even make it through Nikki Haley's 2nd term as the first female president.


Amen to that thought...

Reply
Nov 12, 2019 10:28:53   #
Seth
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court

By
Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist
September 3, 2019 at 2:45 p.m. EDT

In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused President Trump of showing “a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn’t always bend to his wishes” after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes — threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.

The threat came over the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge to New York City’s restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can t***sport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

What is not acceptable is openly threatening the court with political retribution if it does not rule a certain way. That is precisely what these Senate Democrats did. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured to reduce the influence of politics.’ ” As all 53 Senate Republicans wrote in a letter to the court last week, “the implication is as plain as day: Dismiss the case, or we’ll pack the Court.”


Talk about disdain for an independent judiciary! Democrats are not simply criticizing a ruling they disagree with; they are preemptively threatening the court before a case is even taken up. Can you imagine if Trump issued such a preemptive threat? Heads would explode. And in contrast to Trump’s impulsive Twitter rants, the Democrats issued their threat in a carefully crafted legal brief submitted to the court. They thought this through and decided that blackmailing the Supreme Court was a good idea.

Not only was their brief inappropriate; it also was brimming with cognitive dissonance. The Democrats accused the Supreme Court of being too political, but their plan to “reduce the influence of politics” on the court is to have senators order the justices how to decide or face political consequences? What utter hypocrisy.

Keep in mind that these are not backbenchers. Among the signatories to the brief is Durbin, the second-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate. He should know that the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government that does not answer to the Senate, much less its minority.


The Democrats justify their unprecedented intimidation tactics by pointing out that since 2005, the court has issued 78 5-to-4 or 5-to-3 opinions in which Republican appointees provided all five v**es in the majority. “With bare partisan majorities,” they declared, “the Court has influenced sensitive areas like v****g rights, partisan gerrymandering, dark money, union power, regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights and discrimination in the workplace. Every single time, the corporate and Republican political interests prevailed.”

Give me a break. In each of the cases to which they object, the liberal bloc v**ed in unison as well. Were they behaving as a “partisan” minority? Senate Democrats would have no problem with these 5-to-4 decisions if they had been decided by a liberal majority. Their complaint is not with the rise of “political influence” on the court, but rather with their lack of political influence on the court.

The judicial left has gone off the deep end because it is losing its battle for an activist liberal court. When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, they saw a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift the ideological direction of the court for a generation. By appointing two conservative justices, Trump has thwarted those dreams. And now they are worried, due to concerns over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, that Trump might get a third appointment. So, many Democrats are now openly talking about adding more justices if they gain power.


Those threats will backfire, because they dramatically raise the stakes in the 2020 e******n. In 2016, over a quarter of Trump v**ers said that the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision to support him. With Trump already having secured a conservative majority on the court, his ability to appoint justices was shaping up to be a less powerful argument this time around. But now that Democrats have threatened to pack the court with liberal judges if they win the White House and the Senate, the Supreme Court will once again be front and center. For the president, this is a massive stroke of luck.
Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the... (show quote)


Yet another example of today's far left bought and paid for Democrats showing their unique blend of hypocrisy and utter contempt for the American system.

This will all come out in the wash 9 days short of a year from now.

Reply
Nov 12, 2019 10:30:52   #
Seth
 
peg w wrote:
I doubt this being a stroke of luck. Trumps appointments are really bad, like white r****ts and some one who never set foot in a cort for a lifetime appointment. Rather than oack the cort, the Democrats should impeach the jurists, if they ever win back the senate.


Peg, you are definitely the poster child for the perfect product of left wing propaganda.

Reply
Nov 12, 2019 10:32:19   #
Seth
 
F.D.R. wrote:
Peg, It seems that your rage is impairing your keyboard sk**ls. Calm down, you'll live longer. Heck, you might even make it through Nikki Haley's 2nd term as the first female president.



Reply
 
 
Nov 13, 2019 16:26:04   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret.
 
F.D.R. wrote:
Peg, It seems that your rage is impairing your keyboard sk**ls. Calm down, you'll live longer. Heck, you might even make it through Nikki Haley's 2nd term as the first female president.


Maybe.

Reply
Nov 13, 2019 20:00:27   #
promilitary
 
peg w wrote:
I doubt this being a stroke of luck. Trumps appointments are really bad, like white r****ts and some one who never set foot in a cort for a lifetime appointment. Rather than oack the cort, the Democrats should impeach the jurists, if they ever win back the senate.




I imagine the Justices are shaking in their robes.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.