Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: 'Heal' or face restructuring

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...HRU?li=BBnb7Kz


Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.
© FoxNews.com Several Democratic candidates have suggested the idea of "court-packing" The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction that must be remedied.

"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.'"
The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was "motivated by politics" more than by the law.
Dramatic changes to the Supreme Court have been proposed by several Democrats vying for their party's 2020 presidential nomination, with "court-packing" being a common — though highly controversial — suggestion. Increasing the number of justices on the court would allow the president to shift the balance on the bench by loading up justices of his or her preference.
Democratic candidates including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.
Yet other candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden has come out against court-packing, as has Bernie Sanders, though the Vermont senator has suggested rotating judges to other courts.
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also spoken out against court-packing, telling NPR in July, "Nine seems to be a good number."
The Democratic senators' brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an "industrial-strength influence campaign" to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.
If the court still decides to hear the case, a ruling against New York City could prevent other cities and states from passing similar gun control laws.
Conservatives currently outnumber liberals on the Supreme Court 5-4, but the past year featured a multitude of cases where conservatives — including President Trump's picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — sided with the liberal bloc.


I am stunned by the temerity with which the DPST's address the Supreme Court (SC).
SC does not set it's membership, that is nominated by adminisitration and confirmed by the Senate.

This is blatant threats to do precisely what DPST's are complaining about - they fear a conservative strict constructionist SC which will oppose their non-Constitutional ways of attempting to govern.
Fact of the matter - some of Trump's new SC justices have been very flexible about their decisions and hardly in lock-step with ultra- conservative stands on cases. DPST's have been screaming about Conservative judge nominations as they fear it threatens their non-Constitutioinal efforts.

Yet, they plan to pack the SC with more than 9 judges - and nominate ultra-liberal orthodoxy as the critieria for those Judges. When the DPST's have a POTUS and Senate to confirm ultra-liberal nominations. Constitution, to my reading - does not specify the number of SC justices specifically. however, 9 is a longstanding precedent which even RBG expressed comfort with.

I am stunned by the temerity of the DPST hypocrites to rail against trump for selecting conservative SC justices - even as they plan to pack the court with Ultra-liberal orthodoxy at their first possibility.


Depoliticize the SC - hardly - that is DPST hypocrisy speak for pack the court with ultra-liberals to ignore the Constitution of this country.

Disgusting DPST's.

I believe federal court judges should have term limits; the higher the court, the longer the term. One and done. Appointed and confirmed, not elected.

Thanks for almost posting something cogent (until the insults at the end of the poorly quoted story.)

Good news. Glad to hear it.

The fat lying bastard squatting in the White House ignores the current Constitution so why shouldn’t everyone

The squatter is appropriating monies from other budgets for his monument of stupidity aka “ the wall” without congressional approval.

Isn’t that ignoring the constitution

J666 - nadler and Schiff have been waiting for trump to commit a crime by not observing the Constitution.

If he had not observed the Constitution - they would have already passed a vote of impeachment on the house Floor.

your willingness to rationalize your own trashing of our Constitution based upon a non-event - is truly indicative of how lawless the DPST are. You care nothing about rule of law of the Constitution - only Trump Hate. DPST hypocrisy.

a Pity and a Shame to waste Oneself such as that.

SC raised a valid debate question. For a change!
Start a new thread TM, and consider a debate about Whether Federal and SC justices should have term limits.

Valid thought TR

J666 - nadler and Schiff have been waiting for trump to commit a crime by not observing the Constitution.

If he had not observed the Constitution - they would have already passed a vote of impeachment on the house Floor.

your willingness to rationalize your own trashing of our Constitution based upon a non-event - is truly indicative of how lawless the DPST are. You care nothing about rule of law of the Constitution - only Trump Hate. DPST hypocrisy.

a Pity and a Shame to waste Oneself such as that. Originally Posted by oeb11

Simmer down now, don’t elevate your BP, this article might not be reading material for you........maybe you can read it tomorrow.

https://prospect.org/article/trumps-...constitutional

Thanks - the BP elevation is all yours.

Consider seeking help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSeyZK-U8TI

I believe federal court judges should have term limits; the higher the court, the longer the term. One and done. Appointed and confirmed, not elected.

Thanks for almost posting something cogent (until the insults at the end of the poorly quoted story.) Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

two things. ara ya sitting down? good. i agree term limits would be the best solution. and even that would require Congress to approve if not a Constitutional amendment because the Constitution clearly gives the right to appoint to the judiciary to the President. funny how this is never an issue when a Democrat is President?

these Justices sit on the bench so long they get senile .. like Ruthie. for their own good they should have terms limits. say 20 years at the Supreme Court level. packing the Court is bullshit especially for lifetime appointments.

now about those insults ..

Simmer down now, don’t elevate your BP, this article might not be reading material for you........maybe you can read it tomorrow.

https://prospect.org/article/trumps-...constitutional Originally Posted by Jaxson66

right! because some obscure ORG knows Constitutional law! that's an OPINION. worthless. unless you print it for toilet paper!

Were the 28 other National Emergencies still in effect unconstitutional or just Trump's?

There have been 58 total since 1976 when Ford signed the law. How many of those were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional?

ZERO!


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list...ry?id=60294693


According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.

And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Here's a list of the presidents who declared still ongoing national emergencies.



President Jimmy Carter



John Bazemore/AP, FILE

Former President Jimmy Carter speaks as Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams listens on during a news conference to announce her rural health care plan in Plains, Ga., Sept. 18, 2018.more + Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.



President Bill Clinton



AFP/Getty Images, FILE
President Bill Clinton walks out to make a statement to the media in the Rose Garden at the White House on Feb. 12, 1999.more + Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.



President George W. Bush



Stephen Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images, FILE
President George W. Bush addresses the nation aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as it sails for Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, Calif.more +

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”



President Barack Obama


NurPhoto via Getty Images
President Barack Obama signs the Every Student Succeeds Act, Dec. 10, 2015, in Washington, DC.more +

April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.



President Donald Trump


Carlos Barria/AP
President Donald Trump speaks from the Oval Office of the White House as he gives a prime-time address about border security, Jan. 8, 2018, in Washington.more +


Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”


Not one of these has been declared unconstitutional.

two things. ara ya sitting down? good. i agree term limits would be the best solution. and even that would require Congress to approve if not a Constitutional amendment because the Constitution clearly gives the right to appoint to the judiciary to the President. funny how this is never an issue when a Democrat is President?

these Justices sit on the bench so long they get senile .. like Ruthie. for their own good they should have terms limits. say 20 years at the Supreme Court level. packing the Court is bullshit especially for lifetime appointments.

now about those insults ..







right! because some obscure ORG knows Constitutional law! that's an OPINION. worthless. unless you print it for toilet paper!

Were the 28 other National Emergencies still in effect unconstitutional or just Trump's?

There have been 58 total since 1976 when Ford signed the law. How many of those were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional?

ZERO!


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list...ry?id=60294693


According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.

And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Here's a list of the presidents who declared still ongoing national emergencies.



President Jimmy Carter



John Bazemore/AP, FILE

Former President Jimmy Carter speaks as Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams listens on during a news conference to announce her rural health care plan in Plains, Ga., Sept. 18, 2018.more + Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.



President Bill Clinton



AFP/Getty Images, FILE
President Bill Clinton walks out to make a statement to the media in the Rose Garden at the White House on Feb. 12, 1999.more + Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.



President George W. Bush



Stephen Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images, FILE
President George W. Bush addresses the nation aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as it sails for Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, Calif.more +

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”



President Barack Obama


NurPhoto via Getty Images
President Barack Obama signs the Every Student Succeeds Act, Dec. 10, 2015, in Washington, DC.more +

April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.



President Donald Trump


Carlos Barria/AP
President Donald Trump speaks from the Oval Office of the White House as he gives a prime-time address about border security, Jan. 8, 2018, in Washington.more +


Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”


Not one of these has been declared unconstitutional. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Hey WK, liberals prefer “truth” over facts. IJS

Any Court that agrees with the Democrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive agenda is a “Good Court”. Any that does not agree is a “Bad Court”.

The DPST's are outlining a course of Action Re the SC - either Vote our Way or we will pack the SC with ultra-liberals to get Our Way!
Very much as did Hitler outline his intentions in Mein Kampf.

Fascist DPST's.

About those insults.

Ignoring me again, ? SC
Topic is the unconscionable threats the DPST Senate made to the SC.

something DPST's would scream about if Trump said anything like that.

hypocrisy is a concept not consonant with the DPST narrative.



That Trump breathes is something the DPST's consider an Insult!

About those insults. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

#WhatInsults?


#MAGAGurls!


#RTMME!