Supreme Court

Alito Rightly Slams Five Democratic Senators for 'Bullying' the Supreme Court

The senators warned that the Court might have to be "restructured" if it did not reach the conclusion they preferred in a Second Amendment case.

|

In an eyebrow-raising 2019 brief, five Democratic senators warned that the Supreme Court might have to be "restructured" if it failed to reach the conclusion they preferred in a Second Amendment case. Justice Samuel Alito recalled that episode during his Federalist Society speech last night, saying the senators had engaged in blatant "bullying" by issuing "a crude threat" aimed at undermining judicial independence.

Alito is right. The case involved New York City's uniquely onerous restrictions on the transportation of firearms, and the senators—Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.), Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.), Dick Durbin (D–Ill.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.)—wanted the justices to decide (as they ultimately did) that mid-litigation revisions to those rules made the case moot. But instead of simply presenting legal arguments in favor of that outcome, Whitehouse et al. launched an attack on the Court's integrity, accusing the justices of perverting the law to protect "interests important to the big funders, corporate influencers, and political base of the Republican Party." The evidence they presented consisted of cases in which the Court had reached conclusions they did not like.

"The Supreme Court is not well," the senators concluded. "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."

Alito said he was concerned about the appearance created by that threat. "After receiving this warning," he said, "the Court did exactly what the city and the senators wanted. It held that the case was moot, and it said nothing about the Second Amendment. Three of us protested, but to no avail." Although "I'm not suggesting that the Court's decision was influenced by the senators' threat," he added, "I am concerned that the outcome might be viewed that way by the senators and others with thoughts of bullying the Court. This little episode, I'm afraid, may provide a foretaste of what the Supreme Court will face in the future, and therefore I don't think it can simply be brushed aside."

The senators' brief "was an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law," Alito said. "The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution, not by Congress. Under the Constitution, we exercise the judicial power of the United States. Congress has no right to interfere with that work any more than we have the right to legislate. Our obligation is to decide cases based on the law, period. And it is therefore wrong for anybody, including members of Congress, to try to influence our decisions by anything other than legal argumentation. That sort of thing has often happened in countries governed by power, not law."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) did not join that bullying brief. But during a pro-choice rally in March, Schumer turned toward the Supreme Court building and declared: "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Schumer at least had the excuse that he got carried away in the heat of the moment (although his spokesman offered a different, wildly implausible excuse, claiming his boss was referring to "the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court"). Whitehouse et al., by contrast, issued their threat in writing and submitted it as part of a Supreme Court brief, allowing plenty of time for calm reflection.

Democrats have rightly faulted President Donald Trump for undermining judicial independence by casting doubt on the legitimacy of decisions he does not like. Incidents like these suggest they are prepared to defend that principle only when it's politically convenient.

NEXT: San Francisco Considers $1,000 Fines for People Smoking Tobacco or Cannabis in Their Apartments

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Those GA senate elections are pretty damned important now, aren’t they?

    1. It’s amazing how the Reasonistas will stand up to the Democrats once they think that the election is safely in the bag.

      1. I get paid 75 bucks each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 14k/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how. Give it a shot on following website…. WORK24HERE

        1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 own months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

          what I do………work92/7 online

      2. They are socialist democrats in disguise. By only attacking democrats when it’s safe, they can pretend to be independent “libertarians.”

        Unfortunately for them, most people don’t buy their shtick any more.

        1. Hit the nail in on the head – it’s all show now that the election is over. Reason has been taken over by leftists, just like most other media.

    2. No kidding.

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 moniths back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action.AMs I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do…………Click here

      2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 moniths back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action.AQw I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do…………Click here

    3. But, but.. Reason people told me elections didn’t matter, and one vote doesn’t change elections and all that jazz?!!

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 in months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do………work92/7 online

    4. It’s clear the fix is in. NYT wouldn’t give NC and AK to Trump until they gave GA to Biden. The Lefties had to have Biden with a better EC than Hillary and be far ahead of Trump to show “legitimacy”.

      WI, MI, PA, NC, GA, AZ, NV, AK have been at “votes counted >98%” for over a week.

      GA has a recount and Democrats always get thousands of ballots tossed for voter fraud. GA is at 2,689 rejected ballots and counting.

      1. loveconstitution1789, you don’t love the Constitution. You love the lazy authoritarian grifting golfer.

        1. Your TDS ate what passed for your brain.

          1. Your inclination toward despotism is showing. How embarrassing for you.

            1. Your TDS ate what passed for your brain.
              Besides which, you’re full of shit.

              1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 moniths back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action.VEs I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

                what I do………… Click here

        2. Please stop spending so much time eating Biden’s ass. It’s making you retarded.

    5. Let’s see if the cult will make it to the polls not only while Trump isn’t on the ballot but while they are in the post-loss existential crisis.

      Let’s see how much they care about the Republican party. I know I’m interested.

      1. Want To Work From Home Without Selling Anything? No Experience Needed, Weekly Payments… Join Exclusive Group Of People That Cracked The Code Of Financial Freedom!
        Check it out here…..WORK24HERE

    6. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have ynb earned $28775 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do….. Visit Here

    7. As crucial as the defeat of court packing and intimidation of SC justices done by the freedom hating FDR.

  2. If only we’d known in 2019 which candidate/team was the court-packing team!

    Sorry, I mean BOTH SIDES!

    1. Democrats have rightly faulted President Donald Trump for undermining judicial independence by casting doubt on the legitimacy of decisions he does not like.

      Oh FFS! To be sure Sullum, by your own reporting the guy’s practically out the door but, yeah, to be absolutely, stupidly sure.

      1. Trump shouldn’t have worn that skirt.

        1. He was asking for it all dressed up like some kind of Republican, the slut.

  3. “Schumer at least had the excuse that he got carried away in the heat of the moment[.]”

    Thank god.

    1. “Democrats have rightly faulted President Donald Trump for undermining judicial independence by casting doubt on the legitimacy of decisions he does not like. Incidents like these suggest they are prepared to defend that principle only when it’s politically convenient.”

      From the Washington Post (certainly not a right leaning propaganda operation):

      “In his more than six years in the White House, Obama has to an unusual degree — for a serving president — offered strong opinions on how the court’s justices should decide cases central to his legacy. In a few instances, those pointed opinions have sounded a lot like outright criticism.”

      Seems Jacob Sullum is rather selective in his criticism. For a “senior editor,” he seems to be rather biased, little more than a hack.

      1. He’s a socialist writing for a “libertarian” rag on the internet funded by billionaires.

        Enough said.

  4. Watched the video of Alito on Volkh; yeah, pretty much a tank with its gun pointed at the courthouse. And who caved?

    Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. Kavanaugh disappointed in agreeing to dismiss though expressed that the matter “might have to be revisited” at a future date [not shit Sherlock]. Of course we know without looking where Roberts did not stand.

    Now will Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett be enough to favorably grant cert and rule on a future Supreme Court case? You sure as hell cannot count on Roberts and Kavanaugh I have to say is in doubt.

    1. When the speaking-in-tongues folks are your only hope, why don’t you examine why you’re on their side on the first place?

      What do you think you’re gonna get from these folks? Like, specifically?

      1. When lefty shits are your only hope, you’re obviously oblivious to rational consideration.

  5. Meh, let’s not act like they aren’t political. It’s not like ACB’s qualifications (that might fit on a piece of paper?) and hurried nomination doesn’t hurt the image of the court.

    It’s foolish to act like the court itself is above the fray when it’s being stuffed with lackies (along with all the lower courts as well.)

    1. Screw off troll

      1. Jeff’s just copypasting from his Media Matters cheat sheet. That’s why his bullshit sounds a little disconnected.

    2. “It’s not like ACB’s qualifications (that might fit on a piece of paper?) and hurried nomination doesn’t hurt the image of the court.”

      Precisely.

      I mean, I didn’t go to law school, and even I know about the DYING WISH PRINCIPLE. It’s totally illegitimate to replace a cancer patient who passed away in her late 80s — when she specifically requested the next (Democratic) President should be the one doing it.

      1. Ginsburg should have been impeached by Obama and replaced by a woman of color. It is the way.

      2. Why should anyone pay official notice to the whims of someone who should have retired long before?

      3. Lengthy medical treatments for federal employees concern me. She should have stepped down but stayed on the court to help Obama and obstruct Trump.

        Federal retirement age should be 67, like private enterprise. That includes legislators.

      4. Are you being sarcastic?

      5. on what CONSTITUTIONAL BAASIS do you make that claim? READ the document and see what it says. The sitting president (no mention of for how long before or into the future said president has/will sit) SHALL appoint, with the advise and consent of the SENATE justices for the Supreme COurt. Sorry pals, but the COngress did NOT draw that straw, so siddown and shuddup. Trup DID what his job descriptioin TOLD HIM to do. End of the matter. S
        oiur grapes beling back in day care.

    3. Right, because Kagan had such a pedigree.

      No, wait, she had none whatsoever.

      1. I also seem to remember an article on reason about a famous Sotomayor case (pre Supreme Court) where an unfortunate mugger decided to try a martial artist in New York. Martial artist defended himself and pummeled the mugger with his, no joke, nunchucks he pulled from his backpack….

        He won the case but Sotomayor dissented saying the man should be charged under new York city’s ban on concealed weapons for using his NUNCHUCKS.

    4. Ah, the wisdom of the remarkably stupid.

    5. Get up off of your damn knees.

    6. “Meh, let’s not act like they aren’t political. It’s not like ACB’s qualifications (that might fit on a piece of paper?) and hurried nomination doesn’t hurt the image of the court…”

      Meh, let’s pretend you are a sentient being.
      Hint: one of the POTUS duties is to appoint judges and Trump is POTUS.

  6. Alito Rightly

    Just a few minor alterations and I come up with Alt Right. Coincidence? I think NOT!

    1. Right?!? Also:
      “uniQuely onerous restrictions on the trANsportatiON of firearms.”
      The subliminal messaging is crazy

  7. According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, libertarians should demand far more comprehensive gun safety laws than are currently on the books. If expanding the Supreme Court by two (or four, or six …) justices can help achieve this, I say Biden should go for it.

    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. You’re not going to take on Biden’s military with an ak-47.

      1. “Biden’s military” . . ?

        You mean, the People’s Liberation Army?

    2. Whatever happened to Hihnsane? Did he finally get arrested?

      1. I must admit I could be wrong about him being banned. Because at one point I believed Mr. Buttplug had been banned, but that turned out to be a simple case of a lost password.

      2. No, he died back in July.

        1. Pics or it didn’t happen.

          1. Someone posted a link to the obituary a few weeks ago.

            1. It’s rather ironic that a guy who loved to trumpet his supposed influence on the Libertarian party didn’t even warrant a mention in the Morning Links, but J sub D–a random commenter who was essentially homeless, suffered from cancer, and never bragged about his credentials–got his own obit article on this website from Jesse Walker when he passed.

              1. I was proud to be on his enemies list. Four times.

        2. I heard he died in Vietnam. Or was that Jerry Mathers?

    3. Really? Because a few AK-47s, a few rocket launchers and some IEDs often crippled supplies into Afghanistan for weeks.

    4. The civil unrest that such a move would cause would have you clucking in fear in you henhouse.

      I have a brother shot by one of those uninvited visitors from the open borders crowd and I can assure you that myself and several of my family members would enjoy a talk with you about your open borders view.

      1. Committing violence when politics don’t go your way isn’t the way a healthy civilized democracy is supposed to work.

        1. Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Don’t you mean “Fuck off slaver, I have to go round up some illegals and torture them”?

            1. Pretty sure he meant “Fuck off and die, slaver”.

        2. It is healthy if you’re a BLM rioter.

    5. Whoever said that is wrong. Gun-control is anti-libertatian and murderously evil.

      1. anti-libertaRian
        anti-libertaRian
        anti-libertaRian

      2. All gun control? What about tank control? Nuke control?

        Thinking in absolutes, while a hallmark of the conservative mind, is, well, fucking dumb.

    6. Try READING for comprehension that pesky Second Article of Ammendment to the US Constitution. LEARN what a few of those terms meant in the common speech of the late eighteenth century. Words like “arms”, “SHALL NOT”, “keep”, “bear”, “security” “free state”, “the people”, “militia”, “necessary”, “infringe”, then STUDY the ten or so year period leading up to the drafting of that Constitution.
      THEN come back with your whinge and try and convince we who KOW those things that you are correct.

  8. It must suck to be a democrat and fail nearly all the time. Or be as stupid as Hirono.

    1. Has anyone checked to see if Hirono and Hank “Guam will tip over” Johnson have a common family tree of extraordinarily inbred imbeciles?

      1. Thanks for reminding me about that. When he first said that I laughed so hard I cried a little.

  9. Rule of law my ass.

  10. Another 4 years of Trump would have left us in a much better position on 2A. Maybe you should have given that some thought over the last four years Jacob. You could have been a voice of Reason. You got what you wanted. Now STFU.

  11. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.), Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.), Dick Durbin (D–Ill.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.)

    If you were to ask me which douchebag senators would do this, these would be exactly my guess.

  12. How does it threaten judicial independence by criticizing court decisions?

    1. It was a threat before the decision. “Decide the way we want, or their will be consequences.”

      1. Yeah like exercising their constitutionally permissible authority to change the number of justices.

        It’s not a tank pointed at the court. Alito is being hysterical. He consumes too much rightwing media.

        1. lol – Question: When is a threat not a threat?

          Answer: When Tony says so.

  13. Reason are such hypocrites. Alito was defending imposing religious beliefs on all of us, under the guise of fighting culture wars and supporting “religious liberty”. You are libertarians. You should reject any attempt to cram some right-wing “christian” religious beliefs down our throats. Why aren’t you denouncing Alito?

    1. Agreed. That whole “Thou shalt not kill” thing really gets in the way sometimes.

      1. A proper translation is “Thou shalt no commit murder”.
        That commandment is referring to non-judicial deaths.

        Many times after those directives, the nation of Israel was directed to go to war and ‘kill ’em all’.

        1. and I recently learned that ONE of those nations they were instructed to kill entirely is the very nation that, hundreds of years later, surroinded Jerusalem and cut of ftheir food and water supplies then after letting them weaken for a time, entered the city and began to perpetrate horrific forms of brutality on the Israelites trapped inside the walls and getting hungry. HAD they been obedient and slain them all, NONE would have remained to execute judgement upon Israel at Jerusalem back about 67 or so AD.

          1. Wait, when was Israel instructed to genocide the Romans? That’s who was in charge of Judea when Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD.

        2. I don’t like the death penalty, buy it can be Constitutional. The Fifth Amendment isn’t referring to “life without parole” when it mentions capital crime or when deprived of life…without due process of law is brought up. However, neither the states nor the Federal government have to have death on the books. We could even outlaw executions by constitutional amendment after repealing ordinary legislation, just to be sure. That’s hard work, of course.

      2. “Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor’s” is rather tough to adhere to as well.

    2. Oh look, another fedora-tipping idiot who forgot about the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part.

    3. Mind your own business, you Kiwi doofus.

    4. The new slave-owner mentality. You want to force a pharmacist to stock and sell something to which he is morally opposed. You want to force another to decorate a cake and force a religious group doing good works to pay for contraceptives when they oppose contraception. They are not your slaves and not a threat to your enjoyment of your own liberty.

      1. They were a threat to many people’s liberty when they were gas station owners whose religious objection was against black people using the restroom. The only reason we had to restrict the owners’ supposed liberty to discriminate was because they were participating in behavior that harmed other people systematically. The laws grew out of this reality, a reality entirely caused by the bigots.

        1. I know this is stupidity; sarc is not among the few skills shitstain has.

          1. Station owners with an exclusive franchise granted by the state on limited access highways could/can be made to promise not to discriminate as a function of the franchise contract. States accepting federal highway funds to build interstates or other limited access roads can be made to write their franchise contracts that way, or they don’t get the highway money. Not every non-discrimination law or policy violates property rights. Want to be able to sell anything to the dadburned gubmint? Agree not to discriminate. Will some vendors who can do without that kind of business be able to turn certain people away? Yes, but not near enough to cause folks to starve or not be able to travel. Perfect so-called “natural local monopolies” are not usually that perfect. Where they aren’t “natural,” pull their government support.

    5. “…You should reject any attempt to cram some right-wing “christian” religious beliefs down our throats…”

      Don’t recognize the handle; hope this is sarc rather than abysmal stupidity.

  14. Whatever happened to leaving the severed heads of the justices’ favorite interns on their beds?

  15. The Alito speech was apalling. It was whiny, petty, political, non-judicial and never acknowledged the real issue with respect to same sex marriage. That issue is basically this , “How is my religious freedom, how is my life, how is any aspect of my existence impacted by allowing two people of the same sex to marry?”

    It was the inablity of opponents of SSM to answer that basic question that led to the popularity of SSM and ultimately to the legal decision that no, there was absolutely no basis for not allowing SSM.

    So why do people like Alito oppose SSM if their lives are totally and completely unaffected by it? Occam’s Razor, it can only be that they wish to control other people’s lives through government, to impose their views on others and to use the excuse of religious freedom to justify their position. Their bigotry stands out, despite their attempts to deny it, and just as history has condemned those who supported bans on inter-racial marriage as hate filled bigots so will it come to condemn the Alito’s of the world, no matter how much they whine that their freedom of religion is being violated because someone else can do something that has no effect on them.

    And it is amazing that the Libertarian community, the community who basic position is to minimize the role of government in people’s personal lives, to reject the idea that government enforces one person’s religious beliefs on another,is not in the front lines against those like the Alito’s of the world who would use the law to impose themselves on others. Libertarianism does not mean adopting its principles only when they fit one’s previously adopted beliefs, but adhering to those principles when they conflict with one’s prejudices.

    1. Nobody GAF about same sex marriage. It was a carrot dangled before the LGBTQ money to get Obama re-elected. Government has no compelling interest to be involved in a wedding, other than the spreading of disease. I could care less if Mormons or Muslims want to have 8 wives.

      1. That’s a completely different issue. One issue is the definition of marriage. The other is about how many marriages someone can be in at the same time. The law should butt out of the latter. The law cannot possibly disengage from the former.

      2. The state should liberalize marriage as much as possible. It is basically a pre-packaged contract that the state has approved and has recorded your approval of. With it goes some state benefits (such as SS survivors benefits, Medicare spousal benefits) and laws governing various things even though they are not really a “state” benefit (such as inheritance if one dies intestate or presumptions that a spouse can direct medical care for their spouse who is in a coma).

        Gender should not matter. Rules about siblings marrying should generally be eliminated – although the state may have an legitimate interest in preventing procreative sex between two siblings (married or not) due to increased risk of birth defects increasing the risk that the baby will end up on the “government dime” due to disability. So, two brothers or two sisters marrying each other should be fine. As well if at least one party is sterile, brothers and sisters should certainly be able to be married. The act of sex and the act of marriage are independent (obviously people can have sex w/o being married and people can be married without having sex) so restrictions on fertile brothers and sisters marrying should, perhaps, include a restriction on procreative sex.

        As well, marriage among a group of people in any combination should be allowed (for example Alan marries Ben, Cathy, and Dan; Ben marries Alan, Cathy and Dan; Cathy marries Alan and Ben; Dan marries Alan, Ben, and Emily; and Emily marries Dan). Child support in the event of dissolution would be based on biological parents or adoptive parents. Unfortunately, this gets very complicated with issues such as what percentage of Social Security spousal benefits does Cathy get when Ben dies and is it based on the length of the respective marriages and who gets priority to make a decision about “pulling the plug” on Cathy if Alan and Ben disagree on the matter). Therefore, I might think it’s reasonable for the state to limit the flexibility of polygamous marriages (or even disallow them) such as by requiring everyone in a group to be married to each other (and, in the case of divorce or death, everyone having to reaffirm their marriage license or exit the group marriage)

        1. The act of sex and the act of marriage are independent (obviously people can have sex w/o being married and people can be married without having sex)
          please let us know just how many elephants YOU have made from nothing. No, not even fair to start with dirt. Start with NOTHING. Once yoi’ve proven yourself capable of that feat on a few occasions, then perhaps yo can begin to presume to sit in the place of the God who made the universe, without one iota of YOUR “help”. Then once you have elephants down, let’s have a few new galaxies made totally by YOU. From NOTHING.

          Yoo gotz NO clue.

          1. …..sit in the place of ghod… is an argument that has nothing to do with US constitutional law. Many believe in such boojums, but that fact is not dispositive in this argument.

            And nobody made any elephants. Every True Believer knows It’s elephants all the way down!

        2. How ’bout me and my sister? Hey, we love each other, shouldn’t society (be forced to)recognize OUR relationship?

    2. Religion is a straw man in arguments over same sex “marriage”. Marriage originated long before religion, and probably before modern humanity. What’s at stake is (1) the right of persons to have their contracts mean what the words in it meant by their understanding, (2) the right of individuals to be treated by the law as individuals unless there’s a damn good and libertarian reason to treat them otherwise, and (3) the continuing resistance of customary law and language to usurpation by sovereign-imposed law (as happened with money terms such as “dollar”).

      Family law is an intrusion on individual liberty. Unfortunately it’s also a necessary one; our liberty would suffer worse overall by its elimination than it does by its continuation. Marriage and words like “spouse” have secular meanings that have been arrived at thru the spontaneous order of usage, and the law of the family was arrived at by common law without government edicts over centuries.

      Religion has nothing to do with my, or with most people’s, objections to the institution of same-sex marriage. It imposes on secular liberty, not religious liberty. Religious institutions may have certain stances on the issue, but that’s beside the point.

      1. In what possible way does it impose upon your liberty for a man to have a spouse who is also a man, and not similarly impose if that spouse is a woman?

        I mean, if you aren’t otherwise involved, how is it any of your business?

        1. Maybe she’s referring (at least in part) to the destruction of language, and ensuing problems with being able to define and properly address issues under law. In this case, without giving a rat’s ass about whatever personal/contractual relationships consenting adults want to have, and granting them equal legal status with others, one could still reason that calling anything that doesn’t include the factors male/female/human a “marriage” flies in the face of human history, and just invites others to redefine whatever they wish in whatever bizarre manner favors their current whims, and demand society as a whole accept it. Words have meanings.

          Or maybe not….

          1. I do see your point, but I just don’t see how referring to a legal solemnization of a human pair bonding as a “marriage” is altered in a *particularly* radical fashion by including homosexual pair bonds as well. Yes, it is undisputably an expansion of the meaning. But many terms have changed over time, many of them in a far larger way. (“Decimation”, as one example.)

            But I suppose that far fewer people are offended by the word “computer” now referring to a box of circuitry now, rather than a person who performs computations.

            Still, given the highly variable nature of the English language, it seems like a strange hill to die on. And even as someone who self identifies both as an “anarchist” and a “hacker”, while it *annoys* me when people misuse the terms, I still wouldn’t say that it “infringes my liberty” for them to do so.

            1. My kingdom (such as it is) for an edit button!

            2. Marriage is specifically a legal/cultural term that applies to the relationship between fecund adults and offspring associated with them.

              The word itself encompasses an entire system of laws that have risen up in how we recognize people under that institution.

              Same sex couplings with adults that choose to bring children in through a variety of means necessarily requires extra legal contracts in order to produce anything remotely resembling a heterosexual fecund marriage, not necessarily limited to homosexual relationships, but certainly extra legal hurdles that are not necessary between a man and a woman showing up at a courthouse and popping out babies for the next 10 years.

              The marriage contract suffices to protect their offspring. It is not enough to protect the offspring of a couple that brings children to their union through adoption or surrogate <- these require extra protections and contracts that "marriage" does not satisfy.

              1. Except when sterile men and women form the partnership in question it’s still called a marriage.

                Again, I see what you are saying about the need for extra steps for adopted children, but they apply to infertile heterosexual couples as well.

                Why does the specific pair bonding part need to be called something else, and how does *not* calling it something else infringe someone’s liberty?

                I just don’t see how it breaks someone’s arm, picks their pocket, or pisses in their well.

              2. “Marriage is specifically a legal/cultural term that applies to the relationship between fecund adults and offspring associated with them.”

                Legal and cultural are two different things, though they often converge. For example, marriage has culturally long been just a commitment contract between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. Children aren’t even always implied, let alone required.

                That may differ from an older custom, but it was the one we inherited. And the law reflected it. People did not resist law that allowed infertile couples to wed, because they wanted the law to allow that. Well, some probably resisted. Probably you guys.

                Now the law allows same-sex couples to wed. This came about via an idiosyncratic legal route that is nonetheless legal. Does the new law reflect culture or conflict with it? I suspect the Supreme Court is not so divorced from concerns of political prudence that they would have changed the law in the absence of enough of a cultural consensus. But you’re allowed to disagree and even petition to change the law. You’ll need either supreme court justices or a constitutional amendment.

                1. The Romans may have had bonds between men complete with “marriage ceremonies.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
                  An adult man would sometimes adopt a younger, fully grown an as his son and heir. Julius Caesar adopting his grand-nephew Octavian, who eventually became known as Augustus being the most notable example.

      2. “the right of persons to have their contracts mean what the words in it meant by their understanding”

        I’m gonna spitball this not even being a lawyer.

        Let’s say that actually is a thing. What does your prenuptial agreement say about Gary and Bob down the street? What does it say about the philosophical concept of marriage? You must have an interesting prenuptial agreement. So interesting I’m not sure it would survive constitutional scrutiny!

        You do have a prenuptial agreement, right? You must, because otherwise the marriage contract you agree to is the default one written by the government. And it can change that whenever it pleases, what with being the government.

      3. “the right of individuals to be treated by the law as individuals unless there’s a damn good and libertarian reason to treat them otherwise”

        Again, you are welcome to design a custom marriage contract. It just probably can’t tell the legislature what it’s allowed to do with words and standards. Sorry?

        “the continuing resistance of customary law and language to usurpation by sovereign-imposed law”

        Oh, you’re just mad that legislators are changing things in a way you don’t like.

        “Religion has nothing to do with [it].”

        Sure, Jan.

        1. It wasn’t legislators who changed it for much of the country, and that’s kind of the point.

          1. Don’t forget that, no matter what you put in any contract, courts have an annoying tendency to, when confronted with something that is legally novel or otherwise disturbing to the status quo, declaring the verbiage in question to be “contrary to public policy” and voiding it. Any lawyer want to back me up on that, for free?

  16. Pit the threat came from a pack of Dems – biggest do nothing pussies on the planet. As for that POS Alito, I hope the SOB gets “restructured” to the deepest hell ASAP.

    1. Pretty obvious that johnranta, Sidney r finkel and Spookk are all the same idiot.

      1. Hey! Did your walk ever straighten back out after our night together?

  17. “Democrats have rightly faulted President Donald Trump for undermining judicial independence by casting doubt on the legitimacy of decisions he does not like.”

    Objecting to a court decision is a far cry from demanding particular outcomes from SCOTUS on cases or face the prospect of being restructured to become a political rubber stamp subject to the whims left wing ideologues.

  18. Wait. I thought Trump was the bully?

    I’m so confused.

    1. He is a bully, but he has at least one ally on the Supreme Court.

  19. Congress has no right to interfere with that work any more than we have the right to legislate.

    Um, about that….

  20. Funny, the mask is slipping from the policies of the party of mask mandates –

    1. They don’t need it anymore. They’re in the homestretch.

    2. We need a national mask mandate, with COVID exploding the way it is. If Trump and Co. had taken meaningful action ten months ago like they should have, we would not be in this position, but we are.
      Trump and Pence need to resign and let Pelosi step in–somebody that will actually accept responsibility and that will actually govern

  21. “The Supreme Court is not well,” the senators concluded. “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 am not not sure which is worse. That these Senators are gaslighting the country by couching a crude threat to the Court to obey the Senator’s ideological wishes as supposedly trying to protect it from political influence, or that those clowns may actually think their position is apolitical.

  22. Does nobody else see the irony of Senators claiming the judiciary is “perverting the law to protect “interests important to the big funders, corporate influencers, and political base of the Republican Party”

    I mean that’s really the Senate’s turf, isn’t it?

    1. Excellent point!

      1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do….. Read More.

    2. Joe Biden and the financial operations incorporated in Delaware agree with you.

  23. The courts long ago abandoned the people.

  24. Checks and balances.
    Separation of powers means that the government is separated into three separate and distinct branches. The Constitution of the United States separates these three branches into the executive (President), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme Court) branches.
    This concept makes sure that the three branches of government do not have too much power, but instead share the power. The form of separation of powers is associated with the system of checks and balances.
    Couldn’t the Supreme court find court tampering unconstitutional?

  25. “Schumer at least had the excuse that he got carried away in the heat of the moment”

    Nonsense. Had he been anything other than a Democrat, the press would have hung him.

  26. ★Makes $140 to $180 reliably online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am an a modest piece at a time understudy and work in a general sense one to a few hours in my extra time.Everybody will finish that obligation and monline akes additional money by basically open this link.by follow detailsHere═❥❥  Read More  

  27. Alito should resign from the Court. He has demonstrated clear biases and an inability to consider judicial issues on a legal and independent basis. He is no longer a legitimate Supreme Court Justice.

    1. So it isn’t sarc; it’s stupidity.

  28. Wow who let the trolls out?

    Alito is for 2A. NY was playing games.

  29. Mazie Hirono is a pathetic bully. I have never heard her act any differently in any hearing. The only more pathetic thing is how she make her way up the Hawai’i d leadership.

    1. My jaw dropped when she asked ACB if she ever sexually assaulted anybody. Her mind is just nonsensical.

  30. One branch (one party of one branch) of the government threatening a co-equal branch of the government, and they call the right wing the fascists. I think these people would be more than happy to completely discard the US Constitution, our form of government, all our liberties and the rule of law, if they could simply impose their will on all of us.

  31. I have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google..
    and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..
    go to this site for more details… ➢➢➢➢ Visit here for full detail

Please to post comments