Liberal commentator Keith Olbermann demanded Thursday that the Supreme Court be dissolved after the court, once again, reaffirmed the Second Amendment.
What did the court rule?
The Supreme Court struck down a New York law that required residents seeking a concealed carry permit to demonstrate “proper cause” for obtaining one.
Under the law, wanting a concealed carry permit for personal protection outside your home was not a sufficient reason for being granted a concealed carry license unless you were someone famous, for example.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court opinion:
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”
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.
How did Olbermann react?
The former MSNBC and ESPN host demanded that the ruling be ignored and the Supreme Court be dissolved.
“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,” Olbermann said. “Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?”
In a follow-up tweet, Olbermann bashed the Supreme Court’s conservative-leaning justices, singling out Justice Amy Coney Barrett and lessening her status as a justice.
“Also, f*** Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the paralegal Coney Barrett,” Olbermann said.
Democrats upset over Supreme Court rulings are increasingly voicing a desire to change the court to force outcomes they want. When Democrats suggest packing the court, for example, what they really mean is adding more liberal-leaning justices to ensure the court rules with a liberal bias.
One wonders, however, if the reverse of Olbermann’s logic works with abortion. If Thursday’s pro-Second Amendment ruling should not be legally binding, does that mean a pro-abortion ruling is also not legally binding?
We probably already know how Olbermann and other Democrats would answer that question.