cfbackrow
NES Member
well they get away with it because the majority of our voting citizens keep voting in moonbats....who then stack the judgeship's...its a bullshit situation
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley
- Thread starter BostonBullit
- Start date
well they get away with it because the majority of our voting citizens keep voting in moonbats....who then stack the judgeship's...its a bullshit situation
"You want to burn witches? Wait... do they vote Democrat?"
Terraformer,
Not disagreeing with the history. The New Deal was a blow to American constitutional jurisprudence that it seems unlikely to recover from. All I'm getting at is that, however the court decides to justify itself, the function of judicial review remains necessary and is not always trivial, and I prefer that courts publish their standards and logic.
Cekim,
I'm not sure if we disagree on most of those points. If I apply either strict or intermediate scrutiny to most of what the government does, my conclusions look a lot like the ones that would have been reached pre-FDR anyway.
The main issue I take is with this:
To put it another way, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the court to strike down the controlled substances act, under rational basis, because without a constitutional amendment saying otherwise (which we have a clear precedent for), the government has no legitimate interest in preventing people from ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise consuming anything they want to consume. The problem here isn't the standard as defined, it's the idea of 'governmental interest' as something besides the duties expressly assigned to it in the constitution.
Not disagreeing with the history. The New Deal was a blow to American constitutional jurisprudence that it seems unlikely to recover from. All I'm getting at is that, however the court decides to justify itself, the function of judicial review remains necessary and is not always trivial, and I prefer that courts publish their standards and logic.
Cekim,
I'm not sure if we disagree on most of those points. If I apply either strict or intermediate scrutiny to most of what the government does, my conclusions look a lot like the ones that would have been reached pre-FDR anyway.
The main issue I take is with this:
Part of the responsibility of congress, and of courts in a common-law system, is to look at places where it is not obvious whether or not a fundamental right is being infringed, and establish whether it has or hasn't. Trying be consistent about how they do so with a published standard is, on the whole, a good thing, even if they are consistently erring in the wrong direction. The problem isn't that they're being consistent, it's that they're going in the wrong direction.
To put it another way, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the court to strike down the controlled substances act, under rational basis, because without a constitutional amendment saying otherwise (which we have a clear precedent for), the government has no legitimate interest in preventing people from ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise consuming anything they want to consume. The problem here isn't the standard as defined, it's the idea of 'governmental interest' as something besides the duties expressly assigned to it in the constitution.
The problem IS the standard as defined. That is my whole point. "Strict Scrutiny" as currently defined is the only one that even approaches the actual delegation of power and even there, they are failing Due Process if laws and enforcement are allowed that restrict the rights of people not before the courts.
If only one level of scrutiny passes constitutional muster, why even have the others?
BTW, their version of "rational" and ours are not on the same planet, so there again they have demonstrated why they are not permitted to make excuses for government behavior.
Isn't the AG issue some arbitrary non-law nonsense that she puts in place as a scare factor, nothing more?
It has legal teeth in a MA court. Thus costing non-MA companies $$$$ to defend with a MA Bar certified lawyer (who probably knows nothing about MA gun laws/regs)!
Excellent point. I hadn't thought about it like that before.
The Notice of Appeal was filed today.
Onward and upward.....
Onward and upward.....
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
Keep up the good work .
Sad an appeal was necessary. That opinion was a farce. Kick ass.
SO after this appeal process begins, whats the expected timeline for the same decision to be made again?
*****
Talk about a bag job. This State is so corrupt Judges don't even have to obey their own laws.
This case is in federal court, so it is a federal judge, not a state judge.
rogues
NES Member
Talk about a bag job. This [STRIKE=strike]State[/STRIKE] country is so corrupt Judges don't even have to obey their own laws.
I'm convinced that judges often decide cases emotionally, then torture "logic" to defend their emotional decision. MA state judges (including the SJC) seem to be worse than federal judges, but some fed judges do it too.
rogues
NES Member
It's everywhere. This and Peruta show how the fix is in even on the Federal level. If these things don't get to the SC before we lose another justice then we're all hosed.
Peruta is in the 9th [strike=line]Circus[/strike] Circuit. Until recently, the 9th Circuit had the distinction of having the most decisions reversed by SCOTUS.
Thank you
Awesome!
Any update or timeline on the appeal? When do they have to respond by?
We're getting there on the appeal. There seems to have been an issue in transferring the district court transcript to the circuit, but that's been resolved now. I expect that we'll have a briefing schedule within the next few weeks.
Thanks for checking.
Thanks for checking.
The briefing schedule has been set. Draper v. Healey
I'd expect to see a hearing before a First Circuit panel sometime in the fall.
I'd expect to see a hearing before a First Circuit panel sometime in the fall.
Brief filed by Plaintiffs-Appeallants
On Friday we filed the opening brief in our appeals case against the AG's hand gun regulations.
Read it here.
On Friday we filed the opening brief in our appeals case against the AG's hand gun regulations.
Read it here.
Sure Hope Precision Point Armory are as good of guys as we are. You would think after the 5th correction he would get it right... ![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Sure Hope Precision Point Armory are as good of guys as we are. You would think after the 5th correction he would get it right...
I presume one of the plaintiffs should be listed as "Precision Point Firearms" rather then what is listed on the PDF which says "Precision Point Armory"?
Del Griffith: (opens empty wallet) "WE WERE ROBBED!!!!!"
Neil Page: "Do you think so?"
I want a Precision Point Armory shirt + sticker.
Similar threads
