‘Dissolve the Supreme Court’: 6 Worst Takes on Second Amendment Ruling
Finally: a Supreme Court that stands up for the Constitution in the face of government tyranny. The morning before it overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the Supreme Court issued another opinion strongly supporting the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case dealt with New York’s restrictive 1911 law which allowed state officials to deny concealed carry licenses unless a person could demonstrate, to their satisfaction, a special need for self-defense. New York law also prohibits open carry.
In the 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
The ballistic responses nearly put the Babylon Bee out of business. Quite of few public figures on the Left fired off at the mouth with emotional reflexes — unsurprisingly, they were wide of the mark. Here are a list of the worst takes by politicians and commentators.
- Keith Olbermann
Former sports commentator and host of “The Resistance” Keith Olbermann takes the cake for the worst reaction. He tweeted, “It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States. The first step is for a state the ‘court’ has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.”
Wow, that escalated quickly. Somehow, we jumped straight from “ignore the Constitution’s Second Amendment” to “ignore the Constitution’s third article.” Maybe he just wants to restore the Articles of Confederation, because they worked so well.
There’s the legal problem with his suggestion. “It is a federal offense to incite rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,” Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tweeted back at Olbermann.
There’s the political problem with his suggestion. Five minutes ago, the Democrats wanted to pack the court to undermine its legitimacy and ensure its compliance. Now Olbermann wants to dissolve it, Thanos-style. Which is it? His fellow partisans should take him to task.
There’s the practical problem with his suggestion. How, exactly, do the remaining two branches of governments resolve disputes? What about circuit court splits? What do we do with the giant, marble building? Do the current justices get pensions? Does Supreme Court jurisprudence freeze in place, right after issuing a decision he clearly hates? Or would he prefer to abolish all Supreme Court jurisprudence altogether?
- Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Andrea Stewart-Cousins, president pro tempore and majority leader of the New York Senate, comes in a close second. Stewart-Cousins tweeted, “the Supreme Court today decided that guns are more important than lives in this country.”
The Second Amendment was passed by super-majorities (two-thirds) of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures, including New York. Such overwhelming agreement is rare on anything, much less something so controversial — no, not even controversial, barbaric. The framers of a republic that has endured for 250 years certainly did not found it on the unstable principle that “guns are more important than lives.” Fast forwarding to the present day, 43 out of 50 states have laws similar to what the Supreme Court required of New York. Does Stewart-Cousins really believe 86% of states have pro-death gun laws? And, if so, who’s really the extreme one?
Before you blame her too much, recognize that she has only ever known an extreme gun control regime. If all the guns you’ve encountered are illegal, of course you would associate them with crime. Yet even the most sheltered innocent must eventually come out from under her rock. New Yorkers, welcome to the land of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- Kirkland and Ellis
Kirkland and Ellis is a giant, global law firm. Two of their lawyers successfully argued the case in defense of the Second Amendment. In response, they effectively pushed them out the door.
“Kirkland & Ellis announced today its decision to no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment,” they announced. The lawyers, Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, chose to leave the firm and start their own rather than leave their clients in a lurch.
Most companies try to attract talent. Winning a Supreme Court case certainly demonstrates some. The wise man says, “Do you see a man skillful in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure men” (Proverbs 22:29). Clement and Murphy are set, professionally. Their former employer became poorer by parting with them.
- Kathy Hochul
New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) said she was “prepared to call the legislature back into session to deal with this. We’ve been in contact with leadership — we’re just looking at dates — but I will say, we are not powerless in this situation. We’re not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court of the United States of America.”
What rights were ceded? The right to make arbitrary decisions about which citizens could carry a firearm? There’s a word for that, and it’s literally the opposite of “right.” The only right in question is that of the people to keep and bear arms, which New York had infringed upon for too long.
- Joe Biden
President Joe Biden, who has no official connection to the constitutional amendment process, the state of New York, or state laws, still thought it necessary to weigh in. I guess it makes his progressive shot-callers happy. He vented, “this ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all. In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans.”
Perhaps this was an admission that Biden doesn’t remember what the Constitution actually says. Maybe he should re-read it.
Biden’s follow-up point, invoking the recent string of mass shooting, was borrowed from Justice Steven Breyer’s dissenting opinion, and he made the same mistake in choosing examples. One of the shootings he chose to highlight was the one in a Buffalo supermarket — Buffalo, New York. Alito demolished that emotional appeal in his concurring opinion, “The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”
- Kamala Harris
While Vice President Kamala Harris has even less governmental authority than Joe Biden, her connection to the case is arguably a shade stronger, as her home state of California is one of the few with gun laws as extreme as New York’s. She intoned:
We can go on down the list about why it, yet again, is on the front pages, so to speak, of the concern of the American people about what we can and what we have a responsibility to do in terms of reasonable gun safety laws. And it is for that reason that I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision today defies logic in terms of what we know we are capable of doing with reasonable gun safety laws to secure the safety and the wellbeing of the people of our nation.
Once again, it seems that Harris has been tasked with making President Biden look coherent by comparison. The repeated use of the term “reasonable gun safety laws” indicates she was trying to make a point on that topic, but what point she was trying to make is impossible to tell. The only words that resemble a relatively complete thought are “the Supreme Court’s decision today defies logic,” before her sentence receded into the shape of mashed potatoes.
But the point she blurts out is exceedingly silly. The logic-defying decision is in the form of a syllogism: the right to bear arms is equal to other constitutionally protected rights, no other constitutionally protected rights are subject to a citizen demonstrating need, and therefore neither is the right to bear arms. How could it be more logical?
It’s strange to see such common sense coming out of the Supreme Court, but the deranged backlash from the Left is all too predictable.
Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.