How Long Would Bruen, Heller and Wolford Last Once Democrats Pack the Supreme Court?

It’s just 62 days until the midterm elections but horse race prognosticators are already speculating on who’s making moves to run for president in 2028. On the Democrat side, it’s a long list of politicians thirsty for calling 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home.

All of them share contempt for the Second Amendment and the lawful firearm industry — that much is crystal clear. What’s also coming into focus is that most of the serious Democrat contenders support expanding the U.S. Supreme Court and packing it with liberal justices who would likely side with their agenda of gun control restrictions against Second Amendment rights.

What’s even more concerning is the notion of expansion and packing the court isn’t going away, nor reserved just for 2028 presidential aspirants. It’s part of the antigun Democrat party ethos. It is in their political DNA. Remember, just a few short years ago, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) openly and loudly threatened the Court if it were to release a major decision “the wrong way.”

“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,” the Democrat Senate leader shouted on the National Mall during a protest. He was forced to apologize for his dangerous remarks.

And before that, specifically related to the lawful and highly regulated firearm industry, U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), in an amicus brief, threatened the Supreme Court ahead of its pending ruling in the Bruen case. The Washington Post deemed the senator’s actions “controversial,” describing it as “unprecedented political bullying.”

For Democrats and gun control activists who American voters disagree with, the saying goes: If you can’t beat ‘em, change the rules.

The Landscape

Expanding and packing the U.S. Supreme Court has been a goal of progressive Democrats — who now are very clearly running the party — for years. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) penned a column in her home-state rag The Boston Globe calling on Congress to expand the Court.

“I don’t come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation,” she pontificated.

Fast forward through years of similar calls for expansion and U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), a king-maker of sorts in the early presidential election contest process, was asked about SCOTUS packing on NBC’s Meet the Press just this past Sunday.

“I think we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand, and 13 is a pretty good number,” Rep. Clyburn told moderator Kristen Welker. “A baker’s dozen, it would be a good number to have on the court.”

Do you catch the tell? “The current court…”; “In a position now…”; “It would be a good number.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who’s likely a “top tier” Democrat nominee candidate, recently suggested, “We need to revisit…” the Supreme Court’s makeup.

These Democrat leaders’ concerns are completely about politics and how the Court leans the way that isn’t their preference. And you can be certain if the presidency and Congress flips to Democrat control, legislation will be pushed to do exactly what they’re telling us they’d do.

Way Down The Bench

It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to reveal the future to us that expanding and packing the Court will be a central Democrat party policy goal for years to come. They are telling us right now and that goal has been supported by antigun politicians in all ranks of elected federal government.

In the crop of so-called “top tier” presidential names bantered about, Former Vice President Kamala Harris supports expanding the Court. So does California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who after long holding out against court packing, “relented” to political pressure as he thirsts for The White House and stated he supports expanding the Court’s seats. Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro have all recently voiced support for “radical reform” and expanding the Supreme Court. “Everything should be on the table,” Gov. Shapiro said. They are all channeling their inner FDR.

But the calls for “radical reform” of the Supreme Court go way beyond the Democrat presidential aspirants. In the U.S. Senate, several senators have made the goal theirs in one way or another and been vocal about it.

Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed supports just 10-year term limits for justices, turning the Court into a political football game. If Republican nominee and former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) wins, it would flip Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat from Democrat to Republican. Texas Democrat nominee James Talarico stated he would support “ending lifetime appointments.” Elsewhere in the upper chamber, U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have all made their support for Court “reform” well known, whether it be term limits, expansion or some combination of both.

In the House of Representatives, the roster of Court-expanders is long, too. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the likely Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives if Republicans lose too many seats in November, is at the top of the list. House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who could lead the Judiciary Committee if Democrats take control of Congress, has echoed the line “everything is on the table” and has supported Court expansion. The House Congressional Black Caucus, which boasts 62 Members of the Democrat Caucus, formally endorsed a proposal to expand the court.

“Our nation’s highest court has been compromised. The CBC will make it our mission to aggressively advance Supreme Court reform. We will work to establish term limits for justices to help restore independence, neutrality, and legitimacy to the Court,” the CBC stated in a press release earlier this year.

There are too many additional Members of the House that support Court expansion and packing to list individually.

Reality Check

Every single gun owner in America needs to be clear-eyed about what’s at stake in November, just 62 days from today. No exaggeration, no hyperbole. While a possible Democrat presidency is still at least two years away, antigun progressive majorities in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House are real and legitimate concerns. That means antigun legislation and committee hearings. And that clearly would mean a higher probability of Supreme Court reform bills that would expand the Court’s makeup.

Gun owners cannot be passive and stand idly by this November. We need to be active and engaged and vote. That’s why NSSF promotes the #GUNVOTE voter registration, education and engagement initiative. Do not allow progressive antigun politicians to get closer to radical reform of the Supreme Court to overturn the Heller decision that would eliminate Second Amendment rights.

Don’t Risk Your Rights — #GUNVOTE on November 3.

 

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.