Keith Olbermann suggested on Thursday that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down a New York gun control measure was grounds for dissolving the body entirely.
Olbermann argued in a series of tweets that in addition to dissolving the nation’s highest court, the state should ignore the decision handed down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen — which held that a New York law restricting concealed carry permits violated the 14th Amendment in addition to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
“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. Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?” Olbermann tweeted, adding the hashtag #Ignorethecourt.
“Also, f*** Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the paralegal Coney Barrett,” Olbermann continued, taking particular aim at Justice Amy Coney Barrett — notably the only female justice to sign on to that decision.
Olbermann proceeded to mock the Court, suggesting that as an institution it had no power to “enforce” any ruling it handed down.
“Hey SCOTUS, send the SCOTUS army here to enforce your ruling, you House of Lords radicals pretending to be a court,” he said.
Critics were quick to respond to Olbermann, accusing him of calling for rebellion and suggesting that the entire system should be scrapped over a decision he didn’t like.
“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-FL) tweeted.
“Call for a rebellion against federal authority and destruction of a key institution of American government–and Dobbs hasn’t even been handed down yet,” Rich Lowry added.
Actor Adam Baldwin chimed in with a ‘Jeopardy’-themed crack: “Seditious incitement to insurrection for $200 please, Mayim.”
“When people like Keith Olbermann don’t like the decison [sic], they support overthrowing the entire institution. This is exactly what you believe if you have zero respect for democracy or the Constitution,” international security professor Max Abrahms commented.
Olbermann kept going, however, throwing in his own interpretation of the Second Amendment.
“This would be a good moment to remind new readers that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun ownership, private or otherwise. The constitution and the amendments teem with property references. Yet, the word ‘own’ is not in the 2A – nor is any synonym,” he said.
Critics responded by sharing the text of the Second Amendment — specifically the words “keep and bear arms” — and then followed that with a number of replies defining the word “keep.”