Democrats Threaten Supreme Court: Reject Second Amendment or Face Court-Packing

Alien Lotus

Active Member
Jul 8, 2019
199
198
Mid-Atlantic USA
✟5,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Listen to the Story option available at link

WASHINGTON, DC –Democrat presidential candidates and senators this week renewed their threats that unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues liberal rulings on the Second Amendment and other issues, Democrats will fundamentally restructure the nation’s highest court, a shocking threat to judicial independence not seen since the 1930s.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) filed an amicus brief (“friend of the court” legal brief) at the Supreme Court on Monday, joined by follow leftwing partisan Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), demanding that the Supreme Court back out of a case over one of the most restrictive gun control laws in America.

These leading Democrats also warned that if the justices proceed to issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, and if Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020, then they will fundamentally remake the High Court.

The liberal senators warn that “a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is motivated mainly by politics,” accusing the justices of issuing rulings through “bare partisan majorities.”
More:
Democrats Threaten to Pack Supreme Court over Second Amendment


That's what I call tyranny and optimism in writing.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let's think on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”



What is 'well-regulated'?

In a constitutional representative democracy like ours, and in our states also, "well-regulated" would be directly defined by...a legislature, passing a law, under a constitution, or by a regulatory agency created with defined powers by the same.

But the 2nd does say "well-regulated". Yes?

What do you yourself think "well-regulated" means?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is the most hilarious part:

The liberal senators warn that “a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is motivated mainly by politics,” accusing the justices of issuing rulings through “bare partisan majorities.”

The Democrat senators – one of whom is running for president – told the Court to either “heal itself” or be “restructured” if Democrats take power.

Each of these Democrats fiercely opposed President Donald Trump’s nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with opposition to Kavanaugh sinking to a level of personal viciousness unprecedented in the history of American judicial confirmations.

How they can make those statements with a straight face is amazing.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,224,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Nothing like threatening the separation of powers.
Lets say Trump gets re-elected, and the Republicans continue to control the Senate, and Trump gets to appoint another member of the Supreme Court, probably to replace Ginsburg. Let's say he holds true to picking pro-life jurists. There would be six of nine justices that then leaned pro-life, an utterly intolerable situation for the Democratic Party. Also intolerable would be any jurist who would not eviscerate the Bill of Rights.

Let's pretend, in a sort of bad dream scenario, that the Democrats win the presidency and the Senate in the 2024 election. What other option would they have short of civil war to restore abortion to America and remove guns from America but to appoint four more members sworn to promote death and dismemberment and disarmament, bringing the court to 7-6 in their favor? They might find 7-6 too narrow and have to appoint more than just four members, maybe six or more.

If the Democrats win in 2020 they would only have to pack the Supreme Court by a minimum of two members to preserve their abortions and disarm the lawful gun owners, probably the things dearest for them. I don't see them being patient and waiting for their opportunity. I see them making their opportunity by stacking the court. After all, guns and abortion is at stake, and for them nothing is more important.

For the record, I don't want Trump OR a Democrat as president. And, for the record, I don't even own a gun.

And a final curiosity: What gun control law would have stopped the Philadelphia shooter?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What do you yourself think "well-regulated" means?
It relates to the "militia." Meaning the restriction in the amendment is roving bands of gun toting self proclaimed militia groups or mobs are not well regulated.
 
Upvote 0

Alien Lotus

Active Member
Jul 8, 2019
199
198
Mid-Atlantic USA
✟5,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It relates to the "militia." Meaning the restriction in the amendment is roving bands of gun toting self proclaimed militia groups or mobs are not well regulated.
Incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms was an unalienable right conferred to the people prior to the Second Amendment. Read the language. The right ...shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment reiterates the right. It does not confer it.
 
Upvote 0

Alien Lotus

Active Member
Jul 8, 2019
199
198
Mid-Atlantic USA
✟5,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is the most hilarious part:

The liberal senators warn that “a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is motivated mainly by politics,” accusing the justices of issuing rulings through “bare partisan majorities.”

The Democrat senators – one of whom is running for president – told the Court to either “heal itself” or be “restructured” if Democrats take power.

Each of these Democrats fiercely opposed President Donald Trump’s nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with opposition to Kavanaugh sinking to a level of personal viciousness unprecedented in the history of American judicial confirmations.

How they can make those statements with a straight face is amazing.

"Judiciary Committee members Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., wrote in a brief filed Monday that the "Supreme Court is not well.” They suggested the court “heal itself” or face public pressure to be “restructured.” "
Lindsey Graham slams Dem colleagues for brazen warning to Supreme Court

Gillibrand of NY is the candidate running for POTUS. I think she just torpedoed herself with this vulgarity.
Especially after not that long ago Democrat Feinstein accused Republicans of trying to stack the courts.
Conservative group hits back after Feinstein accuses Republicans of packing courts by rushing confirmations

Hypocrisy and praying their base has short memories, I guess.

Why Do Democrats Have A Secret List Of Supreme Court Nominees?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It relates to the "militia." Meaning the restriction in the amendment is roving bands of gun toting self proclaimed militia groups or mobs are not well regulated.
That's an interesting interpretation.

In a situation of a volunteer army called up from the countryside -- "Minute Men" -- well, that militia would be, actually was in actual reality, any individual gun owners willing to respond to the call.

One at a time. As individuals. Yes? The militia was just individuals.

Who decides what is "well-regulated" then for militias -- gun owners? I suppose you'd agree it's according to a constitution, whatever that constitution says is the law making body?

My feeling is overall the 2nd amendment is saying a government in the U.S. cannot prevent its citizens from owning guns, but it can regulate that ownership, so long as said regulations does not infringe their right to keep and bear arms.

Just as a way to understand what other people think I have another question --
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Alien Lotus
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let's think on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What is 'well-regulated'?
In a constitutional representative democracy like ours, and in our states also, "well-regulated" would be directly defined by...a legislature, passing a law, under a constitution, or by a regulatory agency created with defined powers by the same.
But the 2nd does say "well-regulated". Yes?
What do you yourself think "well-regulated" means?
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the 2nd amendment does not address the "right of the militia" but the "right of the people." And there is a small group of power mad people h*** bent on eliminating that right. An unarmed people are a people that can be rounded up at will and herded into prison camps and crematories as 6-7 million people were in Europe in the 40s. Those 27 words are the only thing preventing it.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What is 'well-regulated'?

In a constitutional representative democracy like ours, and in our states also, "well-regulated" would be directly defined by...a legislature, passing a law, under a constitution, or by a regulatory agency created with defined powers by the same.
In 1797 parlance, it meant “trained” or “prepared”.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's an interesting interpretation.

In a situation of a volunteer army called up from the countryside -- "Minute Men" -- well, that militia would be, actually was in actual reality, any individual gun owners willing to respond to the call.

One at a time. As individuals. Yes? The militia was just individuals.

Who decides what is "well-regulated" then for militias -- gun owners? I suppose you'd agree it's according to a constitution, whatever that constitution says is the law making body?

My feeling is overall the 2nd amendment is saying a government in the U.S. cannot prevent its citizens from owning guns, but it can regulate that ownership, so long as said regulations does not infringe their right to keep and bear arms.

Just as a way to understand what other people think I have another question --
Sage observations. I support the right of the people to bear arms. Now if you ask me a relativistic and nihilistic secular society can handle that? That's where the debate needs to be IMHO.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,224,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Sage observations. I support the right of the people to bear arms. Now if you ask me a relativistic and nihilistic secular society can handle that? That's where the debate needs to be IMHO.
Our society never was perfect, but the narcissism now is scary. So many people you really don't want to have going around with guns. And so many of us totally disarmed when they go in to full narcissist suicide mode. So the question is whether it's better if the government rounds up the guns and only the criminals and the government still have them, OR whether we're safer if we all have them. I do think it's better for the government to try to obtain the consent of an armed citizenry than to compel servitude of a disarmed citizenry.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the 2nd amendment does not address the "right of the militia" but the "right of the people." And there is a small group of power mad people h*** bent on eliminating that right. An unarmed people are a people that can be rounded up at will and herded into prison camps and crematories as 6-7 million people were in Europe in the 40s. Those 27 words are the only thing preventing it.
Ah, we'll inevitably have our individual views. I think no amount of guns protect...ultimately. Though Syria's almost a worst case, it's illustrative in a way.

Being well armed will not save the rebels. Nor having just cause.

Really, we will need to rely on God.

Look up General Washington in his own words, about what was key to success.... ("Providence" means God's intervention)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,933.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
In 1797 parlance, it meant “trained” or “prepared”.
Agree. It's the same meaning that was applied to the "British Regulars."
It was in regards to proficiency and training.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums