RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Republican Senators: Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Brief “Openly - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Republican Senators: Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Brief “Openly Threatened” Supreme Court “With Political Retribution” Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 51,434
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 02 September 2019 - 04:00 PM

Republican Senators: Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Brief “Openly Threatened” Supreme Court “With Political Retribution”

“the Democrats’ amicus brief demonstrates that their court-packing plans are more than mere pandering. They are a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans”

Legal Insurrection
Posted by William A. Jacobson
Monday, September 2, 2019 at 4:00pm

Excerpt:

In August 2019, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse signed and filed an Amicus Brief in the U.S. Supreme Court that threatened the Justices with future court-packing if they didn’t vote his way on a 2nd Amendment case.

It truly was an extraordinary move, as we explained in Dem Senators to Supreme Court: Rule our way on 2nd Amendment case, or face possible restructuring:

Whitehouse’s attacks on Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings were demeaning and absurd, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse grilled Brett Kavanaugh about a high school yearbook fart joke. Seriously.

So it’s no surprise that the Brief signed by Whitehouse attacked Kavanaugh, the conservatives on the Court, and the very existence of the Court itself by suggesting the Court would be restructured if it ruled the wrong way.

It was a double-barrel attack — impugning the motives of those holding different views of the 2nd Amendment and threatening to damage the Court’s legitimacy:

Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court. Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gunsafety regulations. Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law,2 the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation….

To stem the growing public belief that its decisions are “motivated mainly by politics,” the Court should decline invitations like this to engage in “projects.” See Quinnipiac Poll, supra note 2 (showing fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Court is “motivated mainly by politics”)….

The influence effort directed at this Court has been industrialized. In this particular “project” to rewrite and expand the Second Amendment, petitioners are flanked by an army of nearly sixty amici. As usual, the true identities and funding sources of most of these amici are impossible to ascertain. Amicus groups claim status as “socialwelfare” organizations to keep their donor lists private,7 and this Court’s Rule 37.6 is ineffective at adding any meaningful transparency.8 Were there such transparency, this amicus army would likely be revealed as more akin to marionettes controlled by a puppetmaster than to a groundswell of support rallying to a cause.

The closing paragraph was at best a thinly-veiled threat (emphasis added):

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.

This was not so much a legal argument, but a shot across the bow of the Court and Chief Justice Roberts in particular.

Nice Court you have there, Chief, shame if something happened to it.

Whitehouse’s Brief generated enormous controversy, and a complaint by Judicial Watch with the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of Rhode Island’s Supreme Court, since that Whitehouse signed the brief while on “inactive” Bar status in Rhode Island.

Now Republicans in the Senate have responded with a letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, which reads in part:

*snip*

Full Story
0

#2 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,743
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 06:35 PM

The leftist defenders are playing dumb with this one and denying there is any threat or extortion. They've also stated that if you find a problem with the brief then you hate the Constitution since they are granted that power. Pure sleaze.
0

#3 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,566
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 02 September 2019 - 07:37 PM

It’s abhorrent...needs to be countered...but just you wait and see Judas Roberts do something to give in to the left.
0

#4 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,394
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 07:55 PM

Fascist much?
0

#5 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,149
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 08:46 PM

It just doesn't get much slimier than Democrat.

<_<
0

#6 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 02 September 2019 - 09:19 PM

scratch a democrat, find a fascist underneath

Example 134,678
0

#7 User is offline   Bookdoc 

  • Daddy's little girl
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,179
  • Joined: 07-September 05

Posted 02 September 2019 - 10:10 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 02 September 2019 - 09:19 PM, said:

scratch a democrat, find a fascist underneath

Example 134,678

I think they are national socialists-sounds more civilized in English...
0

#8 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,191
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 10:32 PM

View PostBookdoc, on 02 September 2019 - 10:10 PM, said:

I think they are national socialists-sounds more civilized in English...

NSDAP...
0

#9 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,720
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 03 September 2019 - 07:10 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 02 September 2019 - 09:19 PM, said:

scratch a democrat, find a fascist underneath

Example 134,678


:exactly:
0

#10 User is offline   linewinder 

  • Ichi Go Ni
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 09-May 04

Posted 03 September 2019 - 09:42 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 02 September 2019 - 09:19 PM, said:

scratch a democrat, find a fascist underneath

Example 134,678


I think you might have missed a few. :whistling:
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users