5 Democratic US Senators file an amicus brief with SCOTUS. You should ALL read it. It's a #BFD

So I caught this thread on Twitter, starts here 

x

Five Democratic senators throw a legal bombshell at the Supreme Court with unusual brief in gun case. The brief provoked considerablecontroversy and even led to the filing of a legal complaint against Whitehouse, who was its principal author.

— SAVE AMERICA (@vietthanhsports) August 28, 2019

The five U.S. Senators are: 

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Mazie Hirono, Hawaii  Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut  Richard Durbin, Illinois Kirsten Gillibrand, New York

and Whitehouse signs the Amicus brief as Attorney of Record, but there wasn’t a link to the Amicus Brief in the thread, so I went and found it and started reading it. [fyi: The reason Whitehouse signs as “Counsel of Record” is that he is representing those who signed onto the Amicus Brief.] 

Holy crow, they just slapped Chief Justice John Roberts across the face with a glove and threw it at his feet! READ IT and you’ll understand what I mean. 

Link from Senator Whitehouse’s official .gov page: Amicus Brief in whole.

It IS a long read 25 pages in whole but some are the index at the front. I won’t kid you, you’ll need to have your brain on straight and be up for some thinking to get through it, but OH BOY, you SHOULD. You really, really should go read it in whole — it is a thing of beauty. 

Some of the document: 

No. 18-280 In The Supreme Court of the United States _________ NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL. Respondents. _________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________ BRIEF OF SENATORS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, MAZIE HIRONO, RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, RICHARD DURBIN, AND KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS _________ Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse Counsel of Record Hart Senate Office Bldg., Rm. 530 Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-2921 counsel@whitehouse.senate.gov

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE  Amici curiae are U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Amici share with the Court a strong interest in the preservation of the separation of powers that sustains our constitutional form of government. This brief centers on the practical, political, and historical context of this case.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The judiciary was not intended to settle hypothetical disagreements. The Framers designed Article III courts to adjudicate actual controversies brought by plaintiffs who suffer real-world harm. This reflects the Framers’ intent that the judiciary “may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, 464 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

1 The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Under Rule 37.6 of the Rules of this Court, amici state that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.

2 The rationale for this long-settled principle is simple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). “It can be tempting for judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the requirements of the law,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomes from the bench. But a judge “is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (Yale Univ. Press 1921). Accordingly, justiciability doctrines, such as standing and mootness, have evolved to serve as an “apolitical limitation on judicial power,” confining the courts to their constitutionally prescribed lane. John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993). In short, courts do not undertake political “projects.” Or at least they should not. 

Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court. Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gun safety regulations. Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law, the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation.

UPDATE: Link credit to hester in the comments 

Also from Sheldon Whitehouse’s .gov site is a plain English explanation HERE 

This is a press release and as such I am treating as Fair Use to display any and all text of the press release, as it appears in situ.

SENATORS CALL OUT PARTISAN ‘PROJECT’ TO TIP SUPREME COURT IN FAVOR OF NRA-BACKED PLAINTIFFS

Whitehouse, Hirono, Blumenthal, Durbin, Gillibrand warn of long-term damage to the Supreme Court’s reputation in delivering for special interests despite longstanding judicial principle

Washington, DC – Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in a case bringing the first major challenge to gun safety laws since 2010.

Against the backdrop of shocking gun violence in America, the senators detail how the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Federalist Society, and other dark money-funded partisan groups have engineered the case before the Court, and engineered the Court’s current Republican-appointed majority to rule in special interests’ favor.  They highlight how those groups shape the Court’s composition and jurisprudence through dark-money spending on judicial confirmations and coordinated amicus campaigns, and lay out the Court’s regrettable record of partisan, 5-4 decisions advancing Republican donor interests.  They argue that the Court should reject efforts to enlist it in what petitioners tellingly describe as “the project” of previous Second Amendment challenges, Heller and McDonald, to weaken gun violence protections.

“[C]ourts do not undertake political ‘projects.’  Or at least they should not,’” Whitehouse, Hirono, Blumenthal, Durbin, and Gillibrand write.  “Americans are murdered each day with firearms in classrooms or movie theaters or churches or city streets, and a generation of preschoolers is being trained in active-shooter survival drills.  In the cloistered confines of this Court, notwithstanding the public imperatives of these massacres, the NRA and its allies brashly presume, in word and deed, that they have a friendly audience [on the Court] for their ‘project.’”

The senators call attention to the damage to the Court’s legitimacy that would be done by ignoring neutral justiciability principles—bedrock legal principles limiting the court’s review to actual cases and controversies—in order to deliver for partisan donors propping up the likes of the NRA.

The senators cite growing concern among Americans with the political nature of the Court.  According to Quinnipiac, 55 percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics” (up 5 percent from last year); 59 percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”; and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”

“The Supreme Court is not well.  And the people know it,” the senators conclude.  “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.”

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, concerns whether New York City’s now-defunct ban on transporting a handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment.  Having agreed to review the case despite the absence of a dispute between lower appellate courts, the Court appears prepared to rule on the merits of the Second Amendment challenge even though New York City effectively repealed the regulation at issue.  The senators argue that the fact that the City repealed the regulation renders the challenge moot.

Special interest spending on campaigns to influence the Court rivals that of political campaigns.  For instance, last year, the NRA spent $1.2 million on television ads urging support for the confirmation of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  “Four liberal justices oppose your right to self-defense, four justices support your right to self-defense,” the NRA claimed in one such ad.  “President Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh to break the tie.  Your right to self-defense depends on this vote.”

I hope this helps those struggling to read through the legalese of the brief. 

- angie