Sen. Chris Murphy warns SCOTUS of "popular revolt"

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

The reason the Constitution has Supreme Court justices nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment rather than voted on by the American people for a finite term is pretty simple. The Founding Fathers didn’t want justices to be beholden to the whims of the people but to the Constitution itself.

Yet Sen. Chris Murphy doesn’t seem to think that should be the case, apparently.

Instead, he’s warning of a “popular revolt” against the Court if they don’t start siding with Democrats.

There could be a “popular revolt,” if the Supreme Court blocks some kinds of gun control legislation, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Sunday.

“If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy,” Murphy, an outspoken gun control advocate, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode,” Murphy added.

Murphy’s comments came after a federal judge ruled Wednesday that a federal law preventing the sale of guns to 18- to 20-year-olds was unconstitutional.

Murphy should be careful because that whole “popular revolt” rhetoric could be taken to mean incitement should any harm befall a justice.

I also find it funny that the court is “already pretty illegitimate” only because it ruled contrary to Murphy’s desires.

The truth of the matter is that the Bruen decision was the right decision. I know that people like Murphy reject that argument, but their rejection of it doesn’t change the reality of it.

Then we’ve got the fact that a sitting United States senator is trying to threaten the Supreme Court to make a determination not based on the Constitution–Murphy offered zero constitutional arguments on the issue so far as I’ve been able to find–but on what he says the American people want.

Let’s remember that when Roe vs. Wade was decided, for example, the American people weren’t in favor of legalized abortion. I’m sure Murphy has no issue with that, though.

Brown vs. Board of Education wasn’t exactly popular with the American people, either. Yet again, one would assume Murphy thinks that was rightly decided, as I do.

See, the purpose of the Supreme Court isn’t to justify our positions, but to render a verdict based on their reading of the Constitution.

As for the Court’s legitimacy, all of the justices were duly appointed by the then-president and confirmed by the Senate. Just because Merrick Garland didn’t get his nomination confirmed doesn’t negate the legitimacy of the Court, nor does the fact that they’ve ruled in ways Murphy doesn’t like.

Them’s the breaks, sport.

As for the phrase “popular revolt,” Murphy is overestimating the popularity of gun control.

Sure, the polls suggest broad support, but much of that support may be a misunderstanding of the rather vague questions being asked–many think they’re supporting the status quo rather than new gun control measures. Still others are supportive of gun control but aren’t likely to take up guns of their own as part of any “popular revolt” against the Supreme Court.

“He didn’t mean it like that,” someone will argue, which is fine. Then just what did he mean?

Either way, Murphy’s comments are an assault on the Supreme Court and, by extension, the Constitution itself. His embrace of gun control already tells us that he didn’t mean it when he swore to “support and defend the Constitution” as a member of the Senate.

He doesn’t want to support the Constitution, nor does he want to defend it. He wants to eviscerate it so that his leftist buddies will be free to trample on our rights however they please.