Thiessen: Senate Democrats' unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court

Thiessen: Senate Democrats' unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court

September 4th, 2019 by Marc Thiessen / The Washington Post Writers Group in Opinion Free Press Commentary
Photo by Elizabeth D. Herman of The New York Times/Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, right, during a panel discussion at the National Book Festival, hosted by the Library of Congress, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center last Saturday.

Photo by Elizabeth D. Herman of The New...

Photo by ELIZABETH D. HERMAN

WASHINGTON — In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-New York, accused President Trump of showing "a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes" after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes — threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.

The threat came over the Supreme Court's decision to hear a challenge to New York City's restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticutt, and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

What is not acceptable is openly threatening the court with political retribution if it does not rule a certain way. That is precisely what these Senate Democrats did. "The Supreme Court is not well," they wrote. "And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured to reduce the influence of politics.'" As all 53 Senate Republicans wrote in a letter to the court last week, "the implication is as plain as day: Dismiss the case, or we'll pack the Court."

Talk about disdain for an independent judiciary! Can you imagine if Trump issued such a preemptive threat? Heads would explode. And in contrast to Trump's impulsive Twitter rants, the Democrats issued their threat in a carefully crafted legal brief submitted to the court. They thought this through and decided that blackmailing the Supreme Court was a good idea.

Not only was their brief inappropriate; it also was brimming with cognitive dissonance. The Democrats accused the Supreme Court of being too political, but their plan to "reduce the influence of politics" on the court is to have senators order the justices how to decide or face political consequences? What utter hypocrisy.

The Democrats justify their unprecedented intimidation tactics by pointing out that since 2005, the court has issued 78 5-to-4 or 5-to-3 opinions in which Republican appointees provided all five votes in the majority. "With bare partisan majorities," they declared, "the Court has influenced sensitive areas like voting rights, partisan gerrymandering, dark money, union power, regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights and discrimination in the workplace."

Give me a break. In each of the cases to which they object, the liberal bloc voted in unison as well. Were they behaving as a "partisan" minority? Senate Democrats would have no problem with these 5-to-4 decisions if they had been decided by a liberal majority. Their complaint is not with the rise of "political influence" on the court, but rather with their lack of political influence on the court.

The judicial left has gone off the deep end because it is losing its battle for an activist liberal court. They are worried, due to concerns over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health, that Trump might get a third court appointment. So, many Democrats are now openly talking about adding more justices if they gain power.

Those threats will backfire, because they dramatically raise the stakes in the 2020 election. In 2016, over a quarter of Trump voters said that the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision to support him. With Trump already having secured a conservative majority on the court, his ability to appoint justices was shaping up to be a less powerful argument this time around. But now that Democrats have threatened to pack the court with liberal judges if they win the White House and the Senate, the Supreme Court will once again be front and center. For the president, this is a massive stroke of luck.

The Washington Post Writers Group

Getting Started/Comments Policy

Getting started

  1. 1. If you frequently comment on news websites then you may already have a Disqus account. If so, click the "Login" button at the top right of the comment widget and choose whether you'd rather log in with Facebook, Twitter, Google, or a Disqus account.
  2. 2. If you've forgotten your password, Disqus will email you a link that will allow you to create a new one. Easy!
  3. 3. If you're not a member yet, Disqus will go ahead and register you. It's seamless and takes about 10 seconds.
  4. 4. To register, either go through the login process or just click in the box that says "join the discussion," type your comment, and either choose a social media platform to log you in or create a Disqus account with your email address.
  5. 5. If you use Twitter, Facebook or Google to log in, you will need to stay logged into that platform in order to comment. If you create a Disqus account instead, you'll need to remember your Disqus password. Either way, you can change your display name if you'd rather not show off your real name.
  6. 6. Don't be a huge jerk or do anything illegal, and you'll be fine.

Chattanooga Times Free Press Comments Policy

The Chattanooga Times Free Press web sites include interactive areas in which users can express opinions and share ideas and information. We cannot and do not monitor all of the material submitted to the website. Additionally, we do not control, and are not responsible for, content submitted by users. By using the web sites, you may be exposed to content that you may find offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of the Times Free Press web sites and any content on the Times Free Press web sites, including, but not limited to, whether you should rely on such content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge that we shall have the right (but not the obligation) to review any content that you have submitted to the Times Free Press, and to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content that we determine, in our sole discretion, (a) does not comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement; (b) might violate any law, infringe upon the rights of third parties, or subject us to liability for any reason; or (c) might adversely affect our public image, reputation or goodwill. Moreover, we reserve the right to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content at any time, for the reasons set forth above, for any other reason, or for no reason. If you believe that any content on any of the Times Free Press websites infringes upon any copyrights that you own, please contact us pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Title 17 U.S.C. § 512) at the following address:

Copyright Agent
The Chattanooga Times Free Press
400 East 11th Street
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Phone: 423-757-6315
Email: webeditor@timesfreepress.com


Loading...