Future of SCOTUS and Second Amendment rights on the ballot
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 Supreme Court of the United States.
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.
Here in the Buckeye State: 2024 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements for the Ohio General Election
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 differently from 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 to 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.
'KEEP AND BEAR RADIO' podcast: The 2024 Ohio Pre-Election Rundown for Gun Owners
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.
- 205 reads
