Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Evidently the five senators signing onto this brief are terrified that the nation’s high court is about to examine the extreme nature of local gun control laws and their constitutionality under the Second Amendment.

Instead of the Supreme Court dismissing the case we believe the court should reject the amicus brief. It is an insult to the court’s integrity, and to the Constitution, itself.

Contrary to what the Whitehouse Five contends in their brief, the nation needs the Supreme Court to take Second Amendment cases and determine whether laws such as the one in New York are infringements, and then provide guidance to the lower courts about where the constitutional line may be drawn.

Alan Gottlieb
August 30, 2019
SAF APPLAUDS SENATE REPUBLICANS FOR CONDEMNING DEM. THREAT TO HIGH COURT
[Dismissing the brief… Hmmm… I kind of like that. But I wonder, without further justification, if that would be unconstitutional in some way?—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

  1. So why would dismissing the amicus brief be unconstitutional? I’d think there must be some way of dismissing or discarding briefs that are clearly in error or irrelevant, e.g. if one were submitted stating the Earth is the center of the universe or that gravity doesn’t apply to birds.

    • Certainly they can accept it and ignore the contents. But could they say, “We will not accept or read briefs from members of the Senate or House.”? Or maybe, “Briefs from Democrats will be rejected.”

      That would seem to me treading on shaky ground.

      • “….from members of the Senate or House.” would probably pass muster under some ‘separation of powers’ ribric, but “….from Democrats.” or any political party/caucus, would be seen not as unconstitutional but political and heaven help it if the courts were seen as political. /sarc.

  2. Followed the link to Legal Insurrection and unless I’m missing something, Whitehouse et al seem to be placing the rule of law in some degree of jeopardy.

    If that’s the case – and given: a) the not-at-all veiled threat to the court, and; b) the practice of law without being a member of the bar in either Rhode Island or Washington, D.C. – it certainly seems to be; it portends such disregard for protocol and established procedure as to be quite worrisome. Whitehouse is a sitting member of the United States Senate and as such carries no small amount of authority and is in a position to create, and influence, legislation directly affecting the laws to which citizens of the United States must conform. As a former practicing attorney, and an inactive member of at least one state bar, Whitehouse should be well aware of the constraints affecting activities related to the practice of law.

    This is not a little thing. John or Jane Citizen may, under the auspices of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, communicate an opinion to anyone of their choosing, including Supreme Court justices; that is a rather far cry from an amicus brief from a sitting member of the Senate claiming to represent several other sitting members.

    Not quite action WROL, but even if not striding that way it at least faces in that direction, which seems to be something becoming more common among those whom we expect to exercise proper and sound judgement in their capacity as members of government.

  3. I wonder if a brief that threatens the integrity and power of a coequal branch of government could be rejected for that reason. The threat here is about as unveiled as it can be short of sending two tanks to sit outside the entrance to the Supreme Court building.

    It is definitely safer to accept it and quietly not read it.

    • Safer, at this point in time and from some a certain standpoint, perhaps … But refusing to take a stand against such BS is only going to encourage more of it, from all sides.

  4. Don’t look to the SCOTUS for relief or protection of 2A rights. If they actually believed in them they’d have heard a 2A case long ago and ruled in favor of the Amendment. The very fact that ‘gun laws’ and lawsuits against them must be filed, heard in court and then taken through the appeals process is more than ample proof that the legal system doesn’t support 2A rights. If it actually did and they ruled according to the Constitution this issue would have been settled DECADES ago. You can probably count on two hands the number of judges who TRULY understand, believe in and support the Second Amendment. That means that all legal cases regarding the Second are generally doomed before they are even filed. The system has been suborned and perverted so badly that the Bill of Rights is AT MOST a minor impediment to the agenda of those in power.

Comments are closed.