R.I.P. Scout26
“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”That’s the “friendly” warning message that was sent by five Senate Democrats in a brief filed in the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v City of New York.
we're going to cry and pout and then hold our breath.Democrat Senators Threaten to ‘Restructure’ Supreme Court if Second Amendment Ruling Goes Against Themhttp://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=post;topic=53171.2850;num_replies=2863
Basically the argument (if you can call it that) they're trying to make is that gun control is a political issue and that the SC should stay out of politics. SCOTUS Is Considering Hearing This 2A Case...And Dem Senators Aren't Happyhttps://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/13/gaggle-of-dem-senators-want-scotus-to-throw-out-2a-case-for-idiotic-reasons-n2551633
The rationale for this long-settled principle is simple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). “It can be tempting for judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the requirements of the law,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomes from the bench. But a judge “is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (Yale Univ. Press 1921). Accordingly, justiciability doctrines, such as standing and mootness, have evolved to serve as an “apolitical limitation on judicial power,” confining the courts to their constitutionally prescribed lane. John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993). In short, courts do not undertake political “projects.” Or at least they should not.Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court. Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gunsafety regulations. Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law, the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation.
But wait, there's more!! From the amicus brief:Bolding mine. Yes, that's right. Liberals are using the DISSENTING opinion on the case that decided there is a right to same sex marriage to claim that the Supreme Court shouldn't involve itself in politics.Just.....let that sink in for a second.
The stupid part is that striking down unconstitutional laws is something courts have been doing for a long time.
