It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big trouble in the little Supreme court?

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   
www.foxnews.com...


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. 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 which 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.'"


I wasn't aware that a problem existed, I mean outside of Kavanaugh getting nominated and all. Now they want to pack the court?
the dems who are going this route are all the same names I remember acting like spoiled little kids when that hearing and process took place.

I remember several recent cases where kavanaugh sided with the liberals. Which if they were correct on the constitution, then he should have. The fact that anyone is talking about liberals or conservatives in the case of the supreme court is a serious problem. They aren't there to be party cheer leaders. They are there to interpret the constitution, period. If they aren't doing that, then they are failing in their duties. That would be a problem, but not getting to pick from your team, because your team lost, isn't a good reason to call attention to the court. (IMHO)

Implosion eminent.




posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   
if it's related to NYC gun laws, I would say they DO have a real problem... but only because there's a multi-page document that decides if you need to register your firearm or not in NYC.

I've not heard of anything going through the supreme court lately, but if the high ranking democrats are upset about it I'm inclined to think it might be good news.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I think the Democrats just guaranteed that the Supreme Court will rule against them.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

I hope it is good news and follows along with the constitution as it should.

This however:

"Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"


makes me wonder what kind of drugs they are doing. They are wanting to restructure so they can influence politically, just from their side. Or is that not what they meant at all?



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
"To reduce the influence of politics"

WTAH?

Is that not what they are doing with their statement? Influencing with their politics?

Wow.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   
it appears to me that these peoples job is just to find anything to whine about



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Hmmmm... perhaps this case in particular, which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear in this session?


New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York
A case in which the Court will decide whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

Source: 2019-2020 Term


+6 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

So, ummm, the left is pissed because they get called out for being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Sounds about right
edit on 13-8-2019 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Seeing as how they are "officials" to the public, they are subject to a few rules and standards. Violation of the code of conduct or any of the rules laid out would make them subject to being impeached.

Unfortunately that ends up in the house and senate, which we know damn well is not going to impeach anyone in their political parties good graces.
[url=http://heavy.com...]https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/can-supreme-court-justice-be-removed/[ /url]



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Hey, Dems, were you hoping on getting any favorable rulings from the Supreme Court in the foreseeable future? (Trump's taxes, FISA-gate, DOJ corruption, the border wall, pending Trump executive orders...)

Might want to think about that a bit before you start slinging veiled threats at the nine most powerful people in the US judiciary.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Face it. The Democrats in this Congress must hate the Constitution.

It's there any part they like?



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

This has nothing to do with anything other than stacking the supreme court with leftest activist judges.

They have already told us as much many times. As soon as they have power again they will attempt to expand the number of seats on the supreme court and slide in a bunch of activist.

www.politico.com...

Packing the Supreme Court explained:

constitutioncenter.org...


edit on 13-8-2019 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Democrats typical plan. Do our bidding, or else.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Sounds like the Supreme court is getting called out on all the blackmail that JE and others participated in. Now with JE out of the way and the blackmail material neutralized the Supreme court has a chance to get back on the rails. The public is watching.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The next time a Democrat complains about an "attack against the checks and balances of government" I will direct them to this statement by Democratic representative while telling them to suck it. At some point we, society, need to stand up and cleanse ourselves of this group of projecting buffoons with the hottest fires we can generate.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Notoneofyou

Since it is likely impossible for the Democrats to ever see a 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate... and the only time a party has had a 2/3rds majority was in the 30s during the great depression and in the 60s when the Southern Democrats were stilla thing and Klansmen openly won seats in the south with a capital 'D' after their name, I don't think there's much reason to worry about a Supreme Court Justice being successfully impeached. I'd love to see the Democrats try, though. Paybacks are a bitch, especially when they come from a body like the SCOTUS which holds virtually limitless power through rulings and legal interpretations. If the Left thought Citizens United was a kick to their asses, they haven't seen anything yet if they really screw up and piss off the court.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

They like the 22nd because it limits Trump to just one more term, otherwise it could be like another 12 years or so.

And they only wanted to ditch the 26th because six year olds can be easily intimidated to vote for whom they are told to vote for by threatening spankings. Plus it was too hard to deal with old enough to vote is old enough to buy a gun logic thrown back at them.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: loam

They like the 22nd because it limits Trump to just one more term, otherwise it could be like another 12 years or so.


I like the 22nd because it kept us from ending up with another 4 years of Barrack's Magical Cavalcade of Fundamental Change. Despite his obvious flaws, I sadly think a majority of voters would have voted that jackass into a 3rd term given a chance to do so.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Agreed.

I was implying that we would not be able to impeach the left leaning justices that can't manage to stay in line with the constitution. And also we could never get rid of the liberal justices because the house and Senate would never let it happen.

Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: lordcomac

I hope it is good news and follows along with the constitution as it should.

This however:

"Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"


makes me wonder what kind of drugs they are doing. They are wanting to restructure so they can influence politically, just from their side. Or is that not what they meant at all?


The optimist in me would say they mean exactly that - that the Judiciary should be independent of Politics.

The little devil pessimist on my other shoulder though would think they mean no political influence....other than their own.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join