Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Senators Threaten Supreme Court on New York Second Amendment Case

Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have filed an amicus curiae brief to have the Supreme Court dismiss the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. City of New York..
The brief is an amazing example of chutzpah and comes very close to being a direct threat to the Court.

A little history is in order. It has been Progressives that have blatantly politicized the Court for most of a century. It was Progressives that claimed the Constitution is only what the Court says it is. It is Progressives that claim the Constitution is a living document. It has been primarily Progessives that have created political projects to bring actions before the court to overrule the legislature.

It is the height of brazen presumption for Democrat senators to chide Conservatives for bringing political cases to the Supreme Court, especially about the Second Amendment.

The first Supreme Court case testing a federal gun control law was Miller.  Miller was a blatant political case brought by an extreme proponent of federal gun control, who was appointed by FDR to the bench
in 1933, Democrat Congressman Heartsill Ragon.
A prominent Democrat, Ragon endorsed Roosevelt in 1932 and helped push the New Deal through the Ways and Means Committee. In return, Roosevelt made him a district judge. The NFA was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal program, enacted with broad support shortly after Ragon took the bench. But the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (sic) was stirring up popular opposition, much of it based on the Second Amendment. The government needed to silence the complaints, and Miller was the perfect vehicle. Ragon had presided in an O’Malley prosecution, so he knew Miller was a crooked, pliable snitch, who wouldn’t cause any trouble. And Gutensohn was a comer who knew the game and got his due. Ragon’s memorandum opinion presented no facts and no argument. With no defense muddying the waters, it was the government’s ideal test case.
The decision in Miller was poorly written. It upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right, but was muddy enough that later decisions by appeals courts completely reversed its meaning, creating the myth of the Second Amendment as a "collective right" of government controlled militias. For 75 years, Progressives dominated the Supreme Court, and the court refused to hear any Second Amendment appeals.

It has been Democrats, leftists and Progressives who have created rights to abortion, homosexual sex, and "gay marriage" out of thin air.  It has been Progressives that have used the "commerce clause" to claim the federal government has the power to regulate everything in the United States.

These Democrat, Progressive, senators attempt to chide the Supreme Court for taking a case to prevent actual, obvious, infringements on the Second Amendment.

The Senators note much of the public considers the Court to be highly political. What do Progressives expect, after three generations of politicizing the Court at every turn? Do they expect the public to forget Judge Bork, Clarence Thomas, and the recent attempt to derail Justice Kavanaugh? From the breif:
Today, fifty-five percentof Americans believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics”(up five percent from last year);fifty-nine percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”;and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics. ”Quinnipiac Poll, supranote 2.To have the public believe that the Court’s pattern of outcomes is the stuff of chance(or “the requirements of thelaw,”Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2612 (Roberts, C.J.,
18dissenting))is to treat the“intelligent man on the street,” Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, Oral Arg. Tr. at 37:18-38:11 (Oct. 3, 2017),as a fool. 
The senators do not stop there. The threat to the court is thinly veiled. From the breif:
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.
The implication is obvious: Nice little Court you have there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it. Rule the way we want, and you may keep your Court.

This, at the same time the senators speechify about maintaining separation of powers of the three branches of government!

I have seldom seen such brazen doublespeak! The Orwellian ability to believe in contradictory things by party members, is much in evidence in these senators.

The ability of the Party Organs (otherwise known as the mainstream media) to control the information flow is dwindling. It remains to be seen if the power has decreased enough to prevent the Progressives from regaining control of the Presidency and the Senate in 2020. In 2016, the Media showed enough power to regain control of the House.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Just a few important facts. The supreme court structure is written in the constitution Congress has no constitutional authority to restructure it. The authority of congress is to create lower courts with less authority than the supreme court has. It requires a constitutional amendment to restructure the supreme court ratified by the people. This is the primary reason the FISA court is an unconstitutional creation of congress. The FISA court operates in secret, that is power the supreme does not have. When the framers wrote the second amendment the concept of Shall Not be Infringed was necessary to prevent tyrannical government, government over reach into guaranteed rights. All gun laws or weapons laws beyond the 26 words written in the second amendment are infringement by definition. Congress can not amend the constitution or the second amendment by passing unconstitutional acts until Shall Not Be infringed is changed by a ratified amendment there are no constitutional gun laws or acts or regulations. the original intent was for citizens to have weapons equal to any thing the government has. You can not prevent or replace tyrannical government if you are out gunned. determining who is fit to own weapons is beyond the authority of government. No one can guarantee you will live to death by natural causes old age. Self defense is a personal responsibility If you are not incarcerated you have the right to walk the streets That right requires personal responsibility for your actions. Never make empty threats the other guys gun is loaded.