You write: "We don't have a Supreme Court."

Yea, kinda do.

You write: "Five of the justices were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote."

It amazes me that people who are intelligent enough to use a computer think that this is some sort of smart observation.

When the Constitution was written for the existing 13 colonies at the time, the smallest 7 states contained about 28% of the total population, whilst the largest six contained, obviously, 72%. So, the Framers DELIBERATELY set up a system by which as few as 28% of the population could control one of the deliberative bodies of the US Government; and the one which happens to be responsible for the makeup of the Supreme Court.

This was, they reasoned, a feature, not a bug. The US is a federation of states, not a single nation; hence the name "United STATES of America." The Senate was designed to maintain this sense of independence-within-unity by insuring that small states had equal voice with the large in one of those deliberative bodies, which is another level of protection against "tyranny of the majority." What they did NOT want was rural states, which have lower populations by definition of their agricultural economies, to be at the mercy of the industrial states with their higher population densities; and they also did not want a Supreme Court consisting of only those who had no connection to rural/agricultural sentiments. A nation which prioritizes, even unconsciously, one part of their population or economy over another is inherently less stable than one which is balanced.

Now, today, the modern left does everything it can to impugn this wise thinking as a fault. By doing so, they either (a) expose their own ignorance of our history and the thinking of the Framers, AND/OR (b) want to turn their backs on our Federalist roots and become a single nation. Since (b) could not occur without tearing up our founding documents and starting anew (something that would in all likelihood require violence), all the energy goes into impugning the integrity of these Justices and the system by which they are chosen.

"Gorsuch is occupying a stolon seat that belonged to President Obama."

The ignorance of the Constitution and law persists. Although you and I would agree that McConnell did a heinous thing by denying Garland his vote (although, ironically, the GOP ended up seating Kavanagh, who has almost the exact same legal views as Garland) what he did was within his prerogative as the Senate Majority Leader.

Further, a seat does not "belong" to a President; that's just a silly way to put it, considering we have co-equal branches of government.

"A sixth judge Thomas was approved by 52-48 vote instead of the required 67 votes for all previous justice. The Repubs changed the rules to get him in."

This is simply not true. The Democrats controlled the Senate in 1991; the GOP therefore had no ability to change the rules. The Democrats COULD have filibustered (and stopped) the seating of Thomas on the Court had they chosen to; however, the senior Democrat who was the chair of the Judiciary Committee at the time eloquently argued that despite the controversy over Judge Thomas, the President (Bush I) had a right to his nominee, and so the Democrats *decided* not to filibuster him.

The senior Democrat who chaired the Judciary Committee at the time was a man named Joe Biden.

"Put simply, they are an illegitimate court and nothing more than a right wing political action committee."

Put even more simply, you call them illegitimate because you disagree with their prevailing judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution as written, where you would prefer to ignore the Constitution it if it gets in the way of your political desires.

"We need to criticize then as much as possible."

By all means, have at it. But threatening violence is an entirely different matter. If a private citizen had publicly said what Schumer and Shaheen said, the FBI would be knocking on their door, perhaps even "inviting" them to come visit a judge.

So, yes, criticize them all you want. But if you think you have the right to threaten violence against them because you disagree with their judicial philosophies or the method by which they were seated, then I and most other Americans want you to do your criticism from the inside of a jail cell. We've had enough political turmoil for awhile, thank you very much.