Five Democratic senators throw a legal bombshell at the Supreme Court with unusual brief in gun case

[Soph0571]

It accused the five justices who were appointed by Republican presidents – Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas – of pursuing a “political project” and being in league with the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups seeking to radically expand gun owners’ protections provided by the Second Amendment.

The petitioners’ “effort did not emerge from a vacuum,” the brief alleged. “The National Rifle Association (NRA), promoted the confirmation (and perhaps selection) of nominees to this Court who, it believed, would ‘break the tie’ in Second Amendment cases. … This backdrop no doubt encourages petitioners’ brazen confidence that this Court will be a partner in their ‘project.’”
-----
The brief concludes with the warning that the court must “heal itself” lest it be “restructured.” As one progressive group aptly noted, that warning is less the work of a legal document than “a declaration of war.”

[link:https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/five-democratic-senators-throw-a-legal-bombshell-at-the-supreme-court-with-unusual-brief-in-gun-case/|]

BOOM...
Gotta love politicians that decide to use direct language in calling out those who would risk democracy for partisanship... yay!

[jberryhill]

1. Yeah, go after the judges

That'll work well.

[FBaggins]

17. Does seem like a particularly boneheaded move

I have to agree with Tribe on this one:

“I agree the Court should drop this case as moot and am usually a fan of [Senator Sheldon Whitehouse] but I think this brief was inappropriately — and stupidly— threatening,” Tribe wrote. “If anything is calculated to get the Court’s back up, it’s a brief like this. Really bad move.”

Gotta wonder whether these five are actually hoping to push the court in the other direction.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

45. You're missing the point.

All the brief has to do is catch fire in the media.

[FBaggins]

54. Apparently so

I don’t see how media attention does anything but hurt us politically.

It certainly doesn’t make it more likely that they’ll declare the case moot (which I would have expected Roberts to lean). If anything, it could get one or two of the liberal wing to smack them down.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

59. This. This was an unnecessary and stupid thing to do.

Judges hold grudges. They ideally shouldn't, but this isn't an ideal world and judges are human so it happens. Attacking some of the SCOTUS Justices is basically seen as an attack on all and on the institution itself. If anyone here thinks the liberal Justices are ok with this, you know nothing. What should have been an easy dismissal just got complicated. I fully agree with FBaggins that some of the liberal side may symbolically vote with the conservative justices just to make the point that the Court won't acquiesce to threats. These 5 Senators may have just made a 5-4 decision a 7-2 or even an 8-1, with 3 symbolically joining the conservatives while still giving input to the dissent.

[LuvNewcastle]

64. "Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely high court judges." - - Morrissey

[diva77]

28. what do you suggest doing about corrupt judges?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

31. worked for FDR

[jberryhill]

34. The FDR administration did not call judges corrupt in filings before the same court, no

[Farmer-Rick]

41. No he called them old fashion, implied they were senile

And said they needed younger men's help with their case load. And he said this out loud and in proposed legislation.

No one knows exactly why the "switch in time saved nine" happened in the court in 1937. But it saved the old men on the court from being put out to pasture. And saved the country from their anti-progressive rulings against the new deal.

FDR was no more subtle then congress is being now.

[FBaggins]

53. FDR didn't have to be subtle

He had overwhelming 4-1 majorities in both the House and Senate.

These senators are in the minority and seem intent on staying there.

[Farmer-Rick]

55. Well around 1937, when the RepubliCON Great Depression rebounded,

FDR had some conservative Democrats that were balking about giving him what he needed to fight off yet another capitalist crash.

He was not without vocal opposition, especially in the Supremes.

But despite FDR's criticism of the political supreme court, the 9 rich old men backed off from their attacks of his policies. And no one really knows why. Funny that it was Justice Roberts that turned out to be the swing vote in favor of new deal policies. And now we have another Roberts causing problems on the Supremes. History doesn't always repeat itself but it sure likes to match.

[jberryhill]

56. Identify the case brief in which that happened

Please identify the case brief in which that was argued and what the decision was.

Otherwise you are comparing apples to narwhals.

FDR did not go after the justices in the course of seeking a decision from the court.

[Farmer-Rick]

57. I am not implying a similar case

I am implying a similar aggressive scorn of the justices.

It's not an impractical comparison. Since there is no similar case with the Supremes, this is the closest comparison. History may not repeat itself but it likes to match up.

[katmondoo]

2. Best news of the day!!!

[Recursion]

3. "Amicus" seems like the wrong word here (nt)

[CaptainTruth]

44. It's an Animus Brief

[Celerity]

51. damn, beat me to it GMTA

[hedda_foil]

4. The Senators who filed the brief are...

The senators were Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

[elleng]

27. Thanks

[pecosbob]

5. I don't see Whitehouse doing this sort of thing without something going on behind the scenes.

[hack89]

7. Whitehouse is no intellectual giant

he has the reputation in Rhode Island as some what of a flakely elitist. He certainly can't hold a candle to our other Senator, Jack Reed, who is brilliant.

[diva77]

19. I'm surprised to hear that - I thought his speech on the "Roberts' Five" was brilliant at the

KKKavanaugh confirmation hearings.

[hack89]

22. He is an astute politician

He is a very good speaker. Just don't expect 12-D chess from him.

[Celerity]

52. and this one cannot even handle draughts

[RhodeIslandOne]

36. LOL

Only amongst the radio talk show idiot circuit.

[ancianita]

38. Read Whitehouse's book, "Captured"(2017) and I think you'd change your mind. I think it's brilliant.

[hack89]

40. Melanie Wachtell Stinnett is the brains of that partnership.

What ambitious politician doesn’t have a ghost written book?

[ancianita]

43. The brains? How? She's cowritten for people other than politicians. Is she the brains of them, too?

[hack89]

49. There is a reason people hire "cowriters"

It is to make them look smarter and more articulate than they really are.

[ancianita]

71. Not at all. They already know more than the writers. The writers are there to make their knowledge

more accessible to a wide audience in the 3rd largest country on the planet. That way, their cut comes from the publisher's wider marketing. Because the topic is greater than local or regional interest, it's of national interest.

Content is one thing -- Whitehouse's knowledge of corporate law's history of corruption of US democratic government players, legal decisions and governing.

Writing is another -- Wachtell Stinnett's knowledge of how to construct information arc through chaptering, paragraphing sequence to include weaving anecdote, quotes and concepts with legal events, smooth word choice style, varying of sentence length.

When you're a senator, president, etc., your job can be so demanding that the "crafting" of the message can be turned over to experienced crafters.

New Press out of New York, and/or Whitehouse, probably picked her from other possible writers. But they didn't pick him.

Then beta readers -- editors -- take the position of reader audience to further give input to the crafter, but not the content person.

I've received data and researchers' analyses in medical and education institutions, taken the content and written the analyses presentable for a lay audience. But I was in no way the brains of the content. I was the brains in writing organization and style, to the wider audience the researchers wanted to reach.

The above are a few of the current activities of publishing. They in no way impugn the intelligence of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, as evidenced by how all reviews that never give any co-writer co-equal recognition or review. Only name recognition.

That is because reviewers know that content originators are the foundation of publishing. No content, no writer. Content is not optional. Writer is optional. Or there might be lower sales if the content person does the writing.

Without Whitehouse, Wachtell Stinnett would have no resume as a co-author. She'd still be a former project manager out of Boston.

In fiction, the Clinton/Patterson book "The President is Missing" is another example. Clinto provides the content, character behaviors, motives, Patterson fits them into detective formula, and he admits he couldn't have co-written anything without the experience of President Clinton.

Seriously, I don't know why you'd persist in wanting to give Whitehouse a lower standing with Wachtell. It's clearly not a vanity project.

Have you read his book?

[empedocles]

33. Suspect there is a lot going on, strategically. The Speaker must be aware, etc.

[ancianita]

37. +1 Indeed.

[hack89]

6. Should be useful in raising some campaign cash

not much beyond that. Could actually be counterproductive if they piss off the justices.

[paleotn]

11. What?

They're going to rule extremely right wing or something?

[hack89]

21. It is foolish to think this will influence the court

Especially considering the Senate Dems have no actual leverage to punish the SC if they rule wrong.

[paleotn]

24. Not yet, and this isn't meant to influence the court.

Wingnuts can't be reasoned with or influenced anyway. It's meant to threaten them with irrelevance if they go too far....i.e. Roe, Windsor... a whole host of legal precedence.

[hack89]

26. "threaten them with irrelevance"

a threat is not meant to influence? Ok. There is no way to "threaten them with irrelevance" - how is that even possible given the political make up of our country?

[cstanleytech]

46. Actually there is it would involve increasing the number of chief justices enough that

their individual power they now wield is mooted and if they want to use their power to achieve political gains then that may well happen.

[hack89]

50. And you get that through the Senate how? Nt

[paleotn]

58. Not this Senate.

If the Dems take the Senate in 2020, which is a distinct possibility. See McConnell's NYT op-ed.

[cstanleytech]

67. I didnt say it could or would happen right now rather I am pointing out the potential way it could

be done should those justices seek to use their position to advance their own political beliefs.

[paleotn]

60. You're assuming the political makeup is static

It's not. And the Senators in question aren't talking about this session of Congress. If the 2018 trend continues, Dems will take the Senate in 2020. Thus, McConnell's threatening NYT op end a few days ago about the filibuster. We're already seeing significant shifts in AZ and TX. VA and CO are becoming reliable blue states, while NC turns purple and perhaps even GA. The fact is, their party, or better yet, their political ideology is dying due to demographics, migration to the south and their inability to recruit significant numbers of young voters. The last vestige of power available to far right Republicans will probably be those lifetime, SCOTUS appointments. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are in their 50's. Alito and Thomas are early 70's and Roberts is mid 60's. They're all going to be there for awhile and the only one with even a modicum of scruples about their legacy is Roberts.

The threat I'm talking about is diluting their power by adding 2 more justices and eliminating any future mischief by this crew. I don't buy the slippery slope argument since Republicanism as we know it is going the way of the Whigs. They would have to retake the White House and both houses of Congress to retaliate with additional justices and I just don't see that ever happening again.

[hack89]

65. So the next Republican Senates add another two justices

rinse and repeat.

[FBaggins]

69. And this is all to make the Supreme Court look LESS political?

[paleotn]

70. If there is another Republican Senate

like this one. And another Republican House like Paul Ryan's. And another Republican President like IQ45. They need all three to pass a judiciary act. In my mind, Trump, McConnell and Ryan are the apogee of their power. It's common knowledge now who they really are and what they're really about. It's embedded in the national psyche thanks to Trump. The far right Republican party is dying and the country is changing. We're not stuck with the politics of 2010, but we are stuck with lifetime SCOTUS appointments.

[LanternWaste]

23. It could also be very productive...

As we're simply guessing and making things up without any objective evidence to support them.

[hack89]

25. When every legal analysis says it is a waste of time

then perhaps it is a waste of time. As a general principle, do you think the SC should heed heavy handed political threats? What if Senate repukes sent a similiar letter regarding abortion? Would the SC be under any obligation to pay it any mind?

[Amishman]

8. I don't understand the strategy here

NY changed their law, and it was a very narrow case about transporting a gun and their permit system.

It has/had a good chance of being dropped entirely as moot.

Just doesn't seem like the case to be confrontational, and I'm not sure if confrontational is a good idea at all as it seems like it could cement the right wingers together in defiance. We were fortunate with how often they broke ranks in the past year

[paleotn]

10. The right wingers are not cemented, they're chisled in granite.

You can't work with these people. Alito, Thomas, Grosuch, Kavanaugh and to a great extent Roberts are nothing but hyper partisans and it's about time Dems started operating and strategizing accordingly. We cannot work with these people. We can only go over them, under them, around them or just run them the hell over.

[calimary]

12. Yep! It's long past time our side said something,

and DID something.

Sometimes there are things that simply HAVE TO be said. And points that HAVE TO be made. May not get the results we want, at least not at first. But how much have we accomplished by NOT saying anything? And by NOT doing anything?

We HAVE TO make an issue of this kind of overreach. In any way we can, and in any way we can think of.

[diva77]

20. +1

yes

[Amishman]

30. Except they are not voting as a bloc, we are seeing splits

Dept of Commerce V New York - Roberts sided with the progressive wing to give a 5-4 win

Virgina Uranium V Warren - 6-3 with odd mix of Roberts, Breyer, and Alito dissenting

Apple V Pepper - Kavanaugh defected and sided with the progressive wing for a 5-4

Flowers V Mississippi - 7-2 with Gorsuch and Thomas dissenting

And there have been more

[cstanleytech]

47. Yet then there was the recent ruling they made rubber stamping gerrymandering.

[RichardRay]

9. Setting the stage for Mayor Pete's presidency? n/t

[paleotn]

13. The Constitution doesn't say that SCOTUS can only have 9 members...

Given the stark political divide and the fact that blue dog Dems are approaching extinction, increasing the size of the court could be a means of eliminating the possibility of reversing Roe, Lawrence or Windsor. As our population and demographics change over the next few decades, the Rethugs will be relegated to regional party status, with limited authority....except for those life time SCOTUS appointments.

[Wednesdays]

35. It's been tried before

Ask FDR how well that idea worked for him in 1938.

Not only that, but once you open that Pandora's box, you're inviting the next repug prez to add more SCOTUS seats until they get the balance to their liking. And on and on, ad nauseum.

[paleotn]

63. Different times. Different circumstances.

The Republicans would have to grab the White House and both houses of Congress to do that, and I don't see that ever happening again with this Republican party. But it is a distinct possibility for the Dems in 2020. The fact is, current Republican political ideology is dying in this country. They know that and are scrambling to hold on to whatever power they can by gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[H2O Man]

14. Recommended.

[mountain grammy]

15. Good for them..

I'm glad they're bringing this up.. corrupt to the core, the NRA spent $$$$ to promote the nominations of right wing justices..

[ffr]

16. K&R

Move and act on it. Don't wait. Do it!

[procon]

18. Wowser! That's a pretty ballsy move. nt

[spanone]

29. K&R...

[kairos12]

32. We get the Senate and the Presidency.

Add seats to the court. No reason it has to be 9.

[bucolic_frolic]

39. The brief is irrelevant, what's news is the Democrats are fighting!

We are in a war. Time to recognize it. Chief Justice Roberts will take this seriously. We don't agree with his rulings, but in interviews he has spoken against partisanship on the Court (in spite of some of its rulings), and of course famously said we do not have "Obama judges, Clinton judges, Bush judges" (even though they appear to us to rule that way sometimes).

The brief is a warning to the court, it may not promote healing, but it serves as notice that the public, Congress, America is watching, that knee-jerk partisanship will not go unnoticed, that rule of law is still more important than one's partisan preferences. They must ask themselves if they rule on the basis of law, or on the basis of partisanship or group affiliation.

If the Court isn't bought and paid for, it should act like it!

[Loki Liesmith]

42. This will backfire hilariously.

[aikoaiko]

48. Our senators make the staggering claim that politics influences SCOTUS appointments.

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

[cstanleytech]

68. It was more of a warning to the justices not to use their position

to make any extremist rulings (such as overturning Roe vs Wade for example) to help advance any group that assisted them into their position because they may share the same political beliefs.

[ewagner]

61. Expect....

a broadside of self-righteous indignation....

or faux outrage

[Mike Niendorff]

62. 28 USC 1

The warning will fall on deaf ears, but nevertheless let the record show that the warning was indeed made.

MDN

[world wide wally]

66. Truth to power.

It all starts with planting the seed