Jerrold Nadler
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The proposal by four anti-gun Capitol Hill Democrats to pack the U.S. Supreme Court by adding four positions is “an outrage” and an attempt to prevent the high court from accepting cases and handing down rulings favorable to the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, New York Congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Mondaire Jones, and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson announced the “Judiciary Act of 2021.” Nadler insisted it is not an attempt to “pack” the high court.

But SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb responded, “That’s a lie, and they know it. Markey, Nadler and their cronies are furious that the Supreme Court now has a majority of justices who are determined to adhere to the Constitution instead of rewriting it from the bench to advance an anti-gun-rights agenda.

“This is,” he added, “an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald rulings affirming the individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

Former President Donald Trump was able to fill three high court vacancies with highly-qualified Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Their ascension to the high court could open the door to review of Second Amendment cases dealing with such important subjects as the right to bear arms in public, and whether popular semi-automatic rifles—now in common use across the country—are protected by the amendment.

“Those are gun rights issues that anti-gunners such as Markey and Nadler, and their Capitol Hill cohorts, absolutely do not want the Supreme Court to consider,” Gottlieb said. “For decades, gun prohibitionists have been fearful that good Second Amendment cases would wind up before a court populated by solid constitutionalists. Now, with the court’s present makeup, those same anti-gunners are terrified of a majority they perceive to be pro-Second Amendment and they’ve introduced this sham legislation in an effort to prevent a ruling that would favor America’s gun owners.

“Frankly,” Gottlieb continued, “it is not simply disappointing but disgraceful that a cadre of anti-gun lawmakers would introduce such a thinly disguised scheme to turn the Supreme Court into a judicial branch of the anti-gun-rights Democratic caucus. Markey’s claim that this is an effort to repair a broken Supreme Court is preposterous. For the first time in decades, the Court is well prepared to handle important constitutional issues, and all the Democrats can think of doing is to seize the court in a legislative power grab.

“If they proceed,” he promised, “we’ll see them—no pun intended—in court.”

 

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 700,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

50 COMMENTS

      • Jerry Nadler is Not a myth, he is a very dangerous member of the communist party, and attempting to Eliminate all traces of Conservatism, by being a cannibal and eating them

        • Hey Gottlieb…Do we go around worrying about slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics, etc? Yes or No?

          I ask you why is it that Gun Control which stands shoulder to shoulder and walks hand in hand with the aforementioned race based atrocities attributed to the democRat Party “Continues to get a pass like Gun Control has no yesterday?”
          Where is it in your daily defense of the 2A do you note the racist/nazi history of Gun Control?

          Let’s reverse things and democRats are pro gun and Republicans are the anti gun scumbags. Don’t you realize democRats would be non-stop hanging the racist/nazi history of Gun Control around the neck of the Republican Party? Yes or No?

          Have you ever heard of fighting fire with fire? Perhaps you should give it a try on a daily basis until history illiterate America sees Gun Control as being just as acceptable as the N-Word and the previous noted race based atrocities attributed to the democRat Party.

  2. Democrat court packing doesn’t threaten any particular previous court decision.

    Democrat court packing is just the final nail in the coffin of the former USA.

    Don’t despair. There is always a future, and we might be able to make it a good one.

    It’s just that the Constitution has utterly failed,.and fallen.

      • If it is to be believed, John Adam is quoted as saying: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. If this is true, then of course the U.S. is falling apart. She has not been moral or religious for a very long time.

    • When you following the constitution by the very words that are written. It is pretty straight forward. Where the hang up falls is, certain groups try to make there interpretations In between the lines on words that’s do not exist. It’s not hard, pull out the Johnson dictionary, the federalist papers, and read through the constitution. Define the keywords by the very definition used in that period of time.

    • The Constitution has NOT failed or fallen.
      Our elected representatives have failed and we the people have never held them accountable.
      There are so many who have broken their solemn oaths of office for money, power and influence.
      Like Trump or not, he kept us safe from other countries, put many many more people to work, increased earnings for many people, started peace in the Middle East, was nominated for at least 3 Nobel Peace Prizes (because of what he did, not what he might do) and shook things up in DC. He started to drain the swamp, but the swamp is not just elected officials. There seems to be many people who work at the different government departments who are also part of the swamp, and firing them is difficult. (Rules and regulations prohibit termination for almost everything)
      There are some elected officials who actually try to do their jobs, but the others make it as difficult as possible.
      Our Founding Fathers DID NOT WANT political parties in America. They were afraid that those in Congress would vote for party rather than for the people. Reading @The Federalist Papers” is great insight into why things were included in or excluded from the Constitution. They were insightful, intelligent, knowledgeable of man’s weaknesses and tendencies and willing to put their lives on the line to make America different from every other country in the world.
      We need to start making more noise when we disagree with Congress or the President. We need to do this PEACEFULLY, but we must do it now!!
      We need to be calling, emailing, messaging, whichever is easiest for you, or all ways of communication, social media and letting them know WE DO NOT AGREE with what they are doing on our behalf.
      They represent US, their opinions don’t matter anymore. They are there to represent OUR opinions, wants & needs, NOT THEIRS. They have forgotten that fact.

  4. “Court Packing” will become the new Super Bowl of national politics. The Dims are trying to ensure elections are unnecessary, or superfluous at best. However, if expanding the court works for Dims, it can work for Repubs; new seats added and confirmed after every election. Such will be a real demonstration of “equity” (equal outcomes, not equal opportunity).

    OBTW: the Constitution cannot fail; it is the people (voters) who fail to keep it safe and effective.

    • yeah, Sam I Am.
      I’m Prognosticating that in 2024 Trump will Up that number, From 14 Members to 25 members and ALL ELEVEN Will be Conservative Christians, And then new legislators will Legislate the count back to 9, as 25 is not economically feasible. Limit the senate, to 50 Members, and the house to fifty members, two five year terms each, and Mandatory execution of all communists, and socialists, and Illegal aliens.

    • Except that if they actually are radical enough to do this then they’ll select a set of justices in such a manner that R’s will cease to matter entirely in elections and therefore they will never get the chance to expand the court again in their favor.

      Marbles. All of them. That’s what this is about. They question they’re weighing is if they can go as far as they’d like without kicking off a war inside the US. If they believe that they can, indeed, get away with it (which, if they’re relatively strategic about their frog boiling I suspect they can) then they will do it.

      They got 80% of what they wanted last year by putting the Pareto Principle. The remaining 20% is the heavy lift but it is doable. 2020 essentially proved that before November even rolled around.

      • Can’s much disagree with your analysis. Maybe one point: Dims fearing a shooting war. The alleged 100million gun owners should be enough to rein in the Dims, regarding potential upheaval. The Dims are only concerned about privately held guns in “nice” places, not the potential for armed civil war.

        The velocity with which the nation adjusted to unconstitutional limits of freedom of choice and movement in 2020 was breath-taking. There is zero authority in the constitution for suspending protected rights based on “public health emergency”. Smallpox historically killed 20-30% of those infected, and entire nations did not shut down their economies. In March 2020, CDC was projecting worst case deaths at 1.7 million. If I am doing the numbers right, that would be 5.1% of the US population (~327million). As best I can interpret the CDC data page, death toll to date is 563,216, which would translate to 0.002% over approximately 14mos. And still the people hide in their homes, and voluntarily endure the scrapping of their rights.

        • 1.7/327 = 0.005, 0.5%.

          The currently established IFR is about half of that. Mostly cluster in people over 70 years of age and 78% clustered in the overweight and obese, who were committing slow motion suicide anyway.

          If you actually look at the public arguments and the publicly available hard data from the CDC itself these things don’t line up at all. Public perception is entirely overblown, particularly on the Left. This follows the pattern I have discussed with mass shootings and public perception thereof to a T.

          Realistically, what the Dems fear is that the Right adopts more unsavory tactics that just a “shooting war”, the kind of tactics the Left themselves love but won’t admit to admiring. But, as I said last weekend, while that’s a moral and ethical quandary that people should ponder in advance so as to avoid being overly reactionary in such circumstances, I can name two people here prepared for how dark topic that gets based on historical precedent. The rest would be horrified and shit their panties at the opening question(s) that, really, are the tip of the iceberg.

        • Dammit and even I made a typo with my zeros.
          1.7/327 = 0.005 =0.05%

          IFR vs CFR and all that nonsense… so that’s a touch less than 1/5th of the currently projected IFR.

          327 × 0.0026 = .6162 = 616,200

        • LOL, you do regurgitate your talking points with admirable diligence, I’ll give you that.

        • Could you be more specific regarding exactly where my post is factually incorrect?

          Do you not know that Congress sets the number of justices?

          Are you unaware that the number has been changed many times over the years, and that in the past we’ve had even more justices than we currently have on the bench?

          Are you unaware that the number of justices has traditionally maintained parity with the number of federal circuit courts of appeal, and we now have 13 federal circuits?

        • Miner I’ve forgotten more things about how government works than you will ever know.

          As for doing your homework for you? Nah, I’ll pass. You wouldn’t understand it anyway, what with you being a proud, drunk Progressive redneck up in a holler sippin’ on shine and whatnot.

          Evidence you wouldn’t understand it? Just check your own post on the history of the size of the court and find the part where you’d get an F on a 4th grade paper even in today’s dumbed down school system.

  5. They say it’s not a partisan issue? Fine. Write the legislation, pass it with DEMOCRAT majorities, but allow the Republicans to pick all the new judges for the next 30 years.

    Watch how fast it becomes a partisan issue.

    They really think we’re dumb as rocks. And all too often, we are.

    • Yeah, if it isn’t a partisan issue, but adding four is the magic number to make the SC function properly, then why not add two Sotomayor and two Thomas proteges? Of course there would be no point. It’s an indefensible position, but that doesn’t deter them.

      “They really think we’re dumb as rocks.”

      They don’t care anymore. They just boldly gaslight every issue, and rely on their propaganda media arm to nod in agreement to everything while the mega multi-national corporations work on silencing their opposition. Who’s the fascist again?

    • I can easily imagine the choices Chief Justice Sonia Sotomayor would choose… 🙁

  9. Actually, the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been changed many times.

    Traditionally, the number of supreme court justices has equaled the number of federal circuit courts of appeal:

    “The size of the Supreme Court grew to accommodate the establishment of new circuits as the nation expanded. In 1807 a seventh justice was added to the court, and in 1837 an eighth and ninth justice joined the Supreme Court. The size of the Court reached its highest point in 1863 with the creation of a Tenth Circuit on the west coast and the appointment of a tenth justice. In 1866, Congress reduced the size of the Court to seven justices and provided that no vacant seats be filled until that number was reached. The number of sitting justices fell to eight before an act of 1869 provided for nine justices, one for each of the judicial circuits established in 1866. The size of the Court has since remained the same.”

    Today, we currently have 13 Federal Circuit Court of appeal, but only nine justices, this is a break with the tradition of the Judiciary branch.

    Clearly, Congress should have added for justices in order to create equilibrium between the Supreme Court and the federal circuit courts of appeal, but Donald Trump neglected this duty so it is up to President Biden to correct the situation.

    https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/supreme-court-united-states-and-federal-judiciary

    • The number of SC justices has remained the same for 151+ years…and you’re trying to convince us that changing it is normal, traditional, and customary, and that it happens all the time? 151 years says otherwise.

      Nor is there any precedent or expectation for seating a number of justices equal to the number of federal circuit courts. If either existed, they would’ve been addressed at some point in the past 151 years. They don’t, and they weren’t.

      Is changing the number of justices constitutionally allowable? Sure.

      But what’s the reason for upsetting an equilibrium that has existed for 151 years? Who stands to gain, and what do we *all* stand to lose?

      There’s a high price to pay for that kind of political upheaval, and the people who are making this power play aren’t figuring to pay it. It doesn’t matter if they think they’re doing it for good reasons. No matter what their reasons are, there’s going to be chaos and pain if they get their way — and it’s you and me that are going to bear the brunt of all of it, not them.

      • My favorite bit is how it’s Trump’s fault even though no POTUS since Grant has performed this “duty”.

        27 in a row, including 10 Democrats, have apparently failed.

        There are times that I wonder if 49er isn’t a bot. Regardless, we know the name belongs to an NPC.

      • “But what’s the reason for upsetting an equilibrium that has existed for 151 years?“

        Funny, that’s what they said about slavery…

        • Because abolishing slavery and changing the number of Justices are very similar issues? The immediate past 151 years are very different from the past 151 years beginning over 151 years ago. I don’t think you have a valid argument here.

        • To suggest that the structure and jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court has remained sacrosanct for the past 151 years is disingenuous at best.

          The structure of the United States Supreme Court has been changed by Congress many times over the past 151 years, below is a brief synopsis of many of these changes that have occurred in the past 151 years, some as recent as 1990.

          “The Supreme Court has exercised only limited administrative authority over the federal courts. In 1922 the act creating the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges required the Chief Justice or an associate justice to convene the conference, and the Chief Justice continues to preside over the Judicial Conference. Congress in 1934 granted the Supreme Court responsibility for drafting rules of federal procedure. The 1939 law creating the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts provided that the Supreme Court would appoint its director. Congress changed the law in 1990, vesting that authority in the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Judicial Conference. The Chief Justice also chairs the board of the Federal Judicial Center.“

          https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/supreme-court-united-states-and-federal-judiciary

        • The most recent change you listed was over 20 years ago, and none of them alter the number of justices. Adding justices is purely partisan which is why you currently support it. Everyone here (yourself included) knows that you would be vehemently arguing against it if Republicans were proposing an additional four conservative justices.

          If it isn’t a partisan position, but it’s needed for the courts to function properly, then Democrats would be asking for this when Republicans were in power. Why can’t you be honest about this?

    • So no complaining if a Republican run Congress gets to add 8 more Justices when they take control in the future. Let’s just keep playing one hand over the bat until the system collapses I’m game.

    • So no complaining if a Republican run Congress gets to add 8 more Justices when they take control in the future. Let’s just keep playing one hand over the bat until the system collapses I’m game.

      Oh and of course orange man’s fault, even though the oreo didn’t do it either.

  10. How many people does it take to decipher, ” Shall Not Be Infringed ”
    If the Supreme Court just went by what the constitution says and not what somebody thinks it should say we’d be alright no matter what the number.

    • You know, the second amendment is not like your school cafeteria, you can’t pick and choose what parts to honor and which parts to discard.

      One must accept the preamble as defining and limiting that which follows.

      • Not arguing, but how am I picking and choosing. I do not like to do that..
        And in my school cafeteria you ate what ever they slopped on your plate,there were no choices.

      • You have this exactly backwards, Miner. As progressives always do with anything that really matters.

        Let me ask you a simple question: If you separate the two clauses of that sentence — “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” — which one can stand on its own?

        The prefatory clause isn’t grammatically complete; it adds context, but doesn’t contain the meaning. By itself it’s a meaningless fragment, as you’ll see if you separate it from the controlling clause (the right of the people…shall not be infringed).

        The Second Amendment doesn’t provide for a professional army or a heavily restricted privilege, but for an entire national citizenry that can be mustered in time of need because it already possesses all the necessary armaments. There can be no militia (let alone a well-regulated one) if the people don’t retain an uninfringed right to keep and bear effective armament. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms, like all human rights, belongs to the people, not to the government.

        One more note: the militia clause in Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that tells the government not only that it can’t infringe on a right, but also how to *use* it. But of course our feckless excuse for a national government fails to respect the right AND to put it to good use.

        This comes back…again…to progressives getting everything bass-ackwards. They ignore “shall not be infringed” and focus obsessively on regulations, as if that were the entire point. Yet regulation is not a synonym for restriction, despite all attempts to make it so. A well-regulated militia must be FUNCTIONAL, just like any well-regulated machine (air compressors, engines, and computers all have regulators of various types that enable them to function properly, and you could expand the list almost infinitely).

  12. Democrats are radical?

    From a POTG poster above:

    “Mandatory execution of all communists, and socialists, and Illegal aliens.“

    Now that’s radical…

    And exactly what Hitler did in 1934.

    • nahh little Boi that Is NOT what hitler did in 1934…. Hitler disarmed and Killed his Own citizens….
      Communists, Socialists and Illegal criminal invaders are NOT citizens…. Nor should they be treated as such.

  13. Let the Ds pick two and the Rs pick two.

    Packing something with four Ds is something best left to the set of an adult film.

  14. “And in my school cafeteria you ate what ever they slopped on your plate,there were no choices.”

    And no back-sassin’

  15. The sooner we accept the fact that we’re no longer a “United States” of America and get on with separating the large metropolitan centers from the rest of the country, the sooner we can get on with freely and peacefully exercising our Constitutional rights without fear of Leftwing totalitarian subjugation. They want this as much as we do.

    They can burn their cities to the ground, fill them with defecating homeless drug addicts, unleash legions of migrant gangs, and pack their city councils with Stalinist era ideologues. And when they’ve finished committing political and economic suicide, we can bulldoze the failed aftermath into the sea for good!

Comments are closed.