Senate Democrats threatened the US Supreme Court not to review a case brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association against the City of New York. SCOTUS ignored them or, because of them, will hear and rule on the matter.
Related: Democrat Senators “Threaten” SCOTUS: Drop Anti-Gun Case or else
We’ve been following it for a few months. The City of New York passed a law restricting the transportation of firearms and ammunition. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association took the City to court and rode the judicial system to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case back in January.
I imagine that someone called the Big Apple and said (Use the Ren Hoek voice) You Idiot! In August I explained that,
Liberals are afraid of what might happen to their unconstitutional gun-grabbing if a challenge is heard at the Supreme Court. New York City has cried “Uncle” rather than risk a Heller-Type tidal wave of pro-gun goodness.
Realizing the error of their overreaching ways, the City of New York changed the law, hoping that past precedent would result in SCOTUS dropping a case that no longer applied. I thought they might. Chief Justice Robert’s had done so in the past. Until Senate Democrats sent a letter to the Supreme Court threatening to remake the court if they took the case.
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.
I was still wary of Chief Justice Roberts as a Swing vote to drop but noted that the Leftist Congressional Democrats threat was a critical overreach that might make a difference.
Has Whitehouse, through his hubris, flipped the court toward leaving the case on the docket when they might have let slide? Will the Justices see this attack as precisely what it is? A political intimidation tactic to skew the Judicial power.
Even Liberal-leaning justices have a robust understanding of the separation of powers and a desire to protect (jealously) their role in it.
One of the most closely watched orders today was the justices’ denial of New York City’s bid to dismiss the challenge to a now-repealed restriction on transporting guns outside city limits. The justices agreed to review the case in January, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s first ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment in nearly a decade.
We don’t know who voted to keep it on the docket. But we should expect some more saber-rattling from Democrats if they can stop implicating their own party in Ukrainian Collusion long enough to take a breath. But to no avail, I suspect, and perhaps to their detriment. Even Never-Trumpers could be convinced. That electing (and re-electing) Trump is a good idea, if for no other reason than a realignment away from the judicial activism that has plagued the Federal Courts for decades.
Liberal judges have used The Bench to issue decisions that create law. A power meant for congress. Which it not only appears unwilling to defend but would purposefully abrogate to unelected lawyers in pretty robes. Not just to make law but to ignore any unconstitutionality when the laws they make get challenged.
New York City got uppity about transporting firearms. Lower court victories emboldened them. Until it became clear that the Supreme Court might not just rule against them but that the ruling would affect laws in every liberal urban bivouac around the nation.
Let’s hope that is exactly how it plays out. A ruling that repeals scores of laws specifically passed to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their second amendment rights
