By Larry Keane
There’s been a fair amount of hyperbole bantered about in the run up to the 2024 election. Voters have been subjected to admonitions that former President Donald Trump is a “threat to democracy.” There have been warnings that this election could be the last free election and accusations that the military could be weaponized against political foes.
The notions are laughable but show the depths to which political opponents will go to inject fear to drive votes. There’s one threat that’s very real, however. And one that voters have had a significant effect on in previous elections.
That’s the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is out reminding voters in her district – and across the nation – that should she and her fellow Democrats have their way, the Supreme Court could look radically different. That’s a threat voters shouldn’t dismiss and one in which they can have a direct impact when it comes to preserving Second Amendment rights and the ability for the firearm industry to thrive.
Target: SCOTUS
Rep. Omar is telling voters that casting ballots for her, her fellow radical extremist “Squad” and other supportive Democrats will deliver a Court that’s nothing more than a rubber stamp for extremist policies. She’s telling voters, “SCOTUS reform is on the ballot in November,” according to a Fox News report. “We need to radically reform the broken Supreme Court,” she posted to social media. Her posts included promises of “expanding the number of Justices,” “a binding, enforceable code of ethics,” and “imposing term limits.”
A couple of reminders. While election rhetoric is clogging up televisions, emails and social media, it wasn’t long ago that lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate were dead serious about upending the structure of the Supreme Court. The reason? The Court wouldn’t blithely kowtow to their unconstitutional agenda. Since the lawmakers couldn’t make an end-run around the Court, their plan is to “reimagine” it not as a co-equal branch of government but one that is subservient to their whims. The constitutional doctrine of “separation of powers” is at risk.
It was only this past spring when Chief Justice John Roberts refused to entertain Senate Democrats pearl-clutching over flags flown at Justice Samuel Alito’s residences. It’s not just flags, though. Democrats targeting SCOTUS are genuinely angry over a series of decisions by the nation’s highest court, some decisions that include Second Amendment rights, like the pivotal New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.
Before President Joe Biden was unceremoniously pushed out of the presidential race in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris, he told a Philadelphia audience, “The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we’ve always had, tell me that won’t change your life.”
President Biden’s promise was to appoint progressive jurors to the Supreme Court and since Vice President Harris can’t think of anything she’d do different than the Biden administration, it’s safe to assume her potential nominees would be cut from the same cloth.
These aren’t idle threats. Democrats introduced legislation in 2021 to expand the Court to 13 justices from nine, an open challenge to the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told media that wasn’t wishful thinking. That was the plan should they take control of both chambers of Congress and The White House. Sen. Whitehouse introduced a bill last year that mirrors the Biden-Harris plan to upset the courts. It would limit Supreme Court terms to 18 years. The legislation calls for presidents to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court every two years and appoint one of those nominated jurors with the advice and consent of the Senate. Only the nine most-recently appointed justices would sit for appellate cases.
What’s at Stake
That plan to restructure the Supreme Court could have significant impacts on the firearm industry and Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court just recently agreed to hear Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., the $10 billion frivolous lawsuit by Mexico against U.S. firearm manufacturers that threatens the survival of the firearm industry, Second Amendment rights and the sovereignty of U.S. law within our own borders. There are other significant cases in the wings too, including challenges to state bans on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines.
A Supreme Court that’s threatened of its independence by lawmakers’ political special interests would be devastating. That’s why SCOTUS is on the ballot Nov. 5, along with control of Congress and The White House. Voters have already had significant impacts on the Court’s composition, when President Barack Obama nominated now-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) followed Senate tradition and declined to move the nomination forward with the election between former President Trump and former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fast approaching.
President Trump won that election. The vacancy on the Court was filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Other vacancies during his term were filled by originalist Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. President Biden nominated Garland to serve as U.S. Attorney General. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Garland has used his perch to weaponize the Department of Justice, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) against the firearm industry. His open hostility toward the industry demonstrates clearly how he would have ruled on Second Amendment cases like Bruen had he joined the Supreme Court.
Voters must take the threat to the independence of the Supreme Court seriously once again. No hyperbole. No exaggeration. The proof is there in the types of justices President Trump would nominate. A Republican majority in the Senate is critical for confirmations. A conservative majority in both chambers of Congress puts Rep. Omar’s radical Court restructuring agenda to rest. Voters can’t afford to risk their rights. That’s why everyone who is concerned about preserving their Second Amendment rights and a flourishing firearm and ammunition industry must #GUNVOTE® on Nov. 5.
Larry Keane is Senior Vice President of Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
I’m pretty sure the primary basis Democrats use to justify their interest in restructuring the SCOTUS is Mitch McConnell’s refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Scalia’s replacement because an election was “only” about 9 months away, but then turning around and confirming Ginsberg’s replacement like 30 days before the 2020 election. I guess the Democrats probably wouldn’t have been any happier if Mitch had been more candid about his reason for artificially reducing the size of the SCOTUS down to only 8 judges for well over a year while we all waited for the inevitable failure of Hillary Clinton’s campaign…lol!
The ends just don’t justify the means when it comes to voting for a complete fraud like Donnie the douche though. That fat orange douche has been openly liberal his entire life. He is a whore who will be whatever you want him to be if it means he gets back into an office that lifted him from B-list reality tv clown to the most powerful man on the planet. Self obsessed, fame hungry faggots shouldn’t be provided with that kind of power… I didn’t vote for a POTUS in 2020 and after the resulting tantrum that loser threw leading up to January 2021, I damn sure ain’t voting for a POTUS this year either. Hopefully his stench doesn’t damage the actual conservatives running in down ballot races too much because I agree the Dems probably are salty enough about Mitch’s SCOTUS power play to seek revenge if they take sufficient control of Congress.
The Dems trying to pack the USSC go back at least as far as FDR in 1937 where there were 4 very solid conservative justices and a 5th leaning against the “New Deal.” Still, it’s fair to suspect that McConnell’s manuevers were the catalyst for the newest efforts after Scalia’s death. I would NOT be surprised if there were pro-slavery Dems trying to thwart Lincon with packing the USSC but I’m certain on the other possibilities of Dem court packing treachey before FDR..
It’s hard to come up with very a lot of good things to say about McConnell. One positive end of McConnell is how he limited the damage the Dems were able to do with judicial appoinments. Sure glad that fake WASP, Soviet style judge, Merrick Garland was NOT appointed. It’s best you sit out 2024 and maybe 2028 will be the year you can cast a vote for the POTUS.
it’s a communist coup, just change the laws to their advantage to facilitate the take over!
Read: Dod 5240.01. Now the Executive branch can direct the military to use “Lethal Force” against the citizenry. Does this mean that the current Administration can interpret the election as it chooses and then enforce their actions by direct military interventions against anyone who challenges or protests?
What we really need to do to end this nonsense after the elections put congress, the senate, and the presidency in Republican hands is to pass a constituional ammendment fixing the number of SCOTUS justices at the current 9 with terms of “life”. Of course this would then have to be approved by the appropriate number of states.
This is why when Harris calls trump a fascist, I laugh. SHE and her cohorts have attacked the Constitution in several ways, NOT just the 2nd.
They ARE fascists, trying to get things their way by any means.