They are human like everyone else and no one likes it when you shove a middle finger right in their face.
-
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.
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
They need to do something.It's not obvious to me his decision will be overturned. The 1st circuit isn't exactly gun friendly, and it's their decision that would be overturned by the Supreme Court.
What happens to him? In all probability nothing, but the process is covered under the US Code Here:
28 U.S. Code Chapter 16 - COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
www.law.cornell.edu
TL;dr version. The judge can be censured privately or publicly. They can have cases removed from their docket, and given cr*p cases to adjudicate, or no cases at all. The judicial council can ask that they resign. And finally, they can request that the House of Representatives impeach him, which the House can also do on their own initiative.
This is setting a dangerous president .
The court needs to step up with a real big hammer or find themselves an irrelevant entity.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,739
- Likes
- 2,527
The chief judge or a judicial council:
Governance & the Judicial Conference
Governance of the Judiciary occurs at both a national and regional level.
KBCraig
NES Member
Sotomayor to NY: Show us why enforcement shouldn't be stayed pending appeal.
thereload.com
Justice Sotomayor Orders New York to Answer Emergency Request to Block Gun-Carry Law
New York will have to tell the Supreme Court why it should be able to keep enforcing its latest gun-carry law after the Court struck down the previous one.
thereload.com
The first Circuit can't do it because the justices on that court are like 90% Donk nominated and if they strike down the RI mag law then it applies to MA and CT as well. The only aspect of the law I could see the 1st Circuit striking down is the lack of grandfathering as Mass has had that for decades, but I don't think the court can take a case ruling on the Bruen precedent of text and history for magazine bans as a whole and only apply it to the grandfathering.
One thing is certain tho with all the Donk judges on all the Circuit courts is they know if they uphold AWB and mag bans that SCOTUS has a high chance of granting cert to an appeal and overturning them to make the decision nationally binding and the goal of every Anti right now is to keep as many 2A cases away from SCOTUS as far as possible.
There's 49 other states with less restrictive carry laws, 26 of them don't even require a license to carry, so there is nothing that NY has to stand on. Apparently NY's legislature thinks the Supreme Court has the mentality of a 6 month old playing peek a boo and it's amazing given that it's the same state that had its license scheme struck down, which the NY legislature threw together a kneejerk law to circumvent that ruling.Sotomayor to NY: Show us why enforcement shouldn't be stayed pending appeal.
Justice Sotomayor Orders New York to Answer Emergency Request to Block Gun-Carry Law
New York will have to tell the Supreme Court why it should be able to keep enforcing its latest gun-carry law after the Court struck down the previous one.
I wouldn’t be shocked if the 1st overturns the district judge on the merits if he write a similar opinion there. This was a TRO, they’ll leave his denial in place on that
CT is in the 2nd circuit along withnVT and NY who each hav e mag limits as well.
The number not requiring a license is much higher than 26. Many states don’t require a license to open carry.
Bruen was dealing with conceal carry, so let's not throw OC into the case.
Garys
NES Member
I believe Bruen dealt with carry outside the home. It was a shall issue versus may issue case. The way Justice Thomas wrote the decision was expansive in that it set a new standard for deciding 2A cases that will result in many laws having nothing to do with carrying handguns being overturned. The RI magazine case is an example.
I know that, but me and Hoover are discussing what reason NY has for having a stay denied on its new carry laws and Hoover thinks Open Carry in other states has an impact, but the NY cases are dealing mostly with conceal carry.
Garys
NES Member
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,269
- Likes
- 33,194
Sotomayor to NY: Show us why enforcement shouldn't be stayed pending appeal.
Justice Sotomayor Orders New York to Answer Emergency Request to Block Gun-Carry Law
New York will have to tell the Supreme Court why it should be able to keep enforcing its latest gun-carry law after the Court struck down the previous one.
I thought she was a bad guy. Dammit. That's two changes to my scorecard in less than 24 hours. (Shockingly, even though they do vote "against" us a lot of times, the Supreme's have respect for the majority decision and rule of law. I have to say it's pretty comforting.)
It's law. You throw a crapton of stuff at the wall and hope that ANYTHING sticks. You go to GREAT lengths to make STUPID points, on the off chance they are accepted. I recall back in a law class, teh prof pointed to the student center out the window. "Can I get to the SC going through that window?" "Sure". "Can I get there going (and he pointed 180 degrees away) that way?" Many said, "no." "Of course you can. But you've got to go ALL THE WAY AROUND THE WORLD. That's what law is like. You make every argument however stupid. Some of it sticks and you win."
It also explains why anything lawyerly takes 800x longer than necessary and costs 2000x more than expected.
SFC13557
NES Member
New Jersey vs. the Supreme Court on Gun Rights
Gov. Murphy signs a law that defies this year’s ruling in Bruen.
From Today's WSJ."Politicians these days don’t have the respect they once did for the Bill of Rights, and some are defying courts that enforce those rights. That’s the story in New Jersey, where last week Gov. Phil Murphy signed a new law that makes getting a gun carry permit more difficult and expensive and sharply limits the public places where a firearm can be carried.
This is a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. That decision barred New York’s restrictive regime for gun-carry permits, holding that the right to carry a firearm extends outside a person’s home and is fundamental to the Second Amendment.
Gov. Murphy concedes he’s bound by Bruen though he disagrees with it. But the new law is transparently an exercise in bad faith to complicate the right to bear arms. The law introduces new hassles to gun rights, such as raising the cost of carry permits and requiring liability insurance. But the most egregious provision bans guns in numerous “sensitive places.”
Prohibited areas include courthouses, airports, places where alcohol is served, schools, nursing homes, amusement parks, casinos, public parks, public libraries and museums, and much more. It’s similar to a recent New York law that bans guns in parks, Times Square and subways. Criminals—who don’t obey gun laws—would know they have nothing to fear from someone trying to defend himself in these gun-free zones.
The Court in Bruen acknowledged the historical reality that guns were sometimes banned in specific locations. But the Justices also said that “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.”
Gov. Murphy knows this. He nonetheless wants to force gun owners to have to sue to vindicate their rights, which is expensive and can take years. While serving in the Clinton Administration in 2000, Andrew Cuomo called this strategy “death by a thousand cuts” as a warning to gun makers to settle a lawsuit brought by 28 cities and counties. Gov. Murphy’s legal defiance to eviscerate an enumerated constitutional right is no more attractive."
SFC13557
NES Member
From Dennis.
"I thought she was a bad guy. Dammit. That's two changes to my scorecard in less than 24 hours. (Shockingly, even though they do vote "against" us a lot of times, the Supreme's have respect for the majority decision and rule of law. I have to say it's pretty comforting.)"
Me too, this decision by her must have sent shock waves thru the anti-gun movement. I guess even far Leftists don't like having their authority mocked by their fellow Dems.
"I thought she was a bad guy. Dammit. That's two changes to my scorecard in less than 24 hours. (Shockingly, even though they do vote "against" us a lot of times, the Supreme's have respect for the majority decision and rule of law. I have to say it's pretty comforting.)"
Me too, this decision by her must have sent shock waves thru the anti-gun movement. I guess even far Leftists don't like having their authority mocked by their fellow Dems.
Friday
NES Member
She also has to maintain the rule of law- what do you think would happen if one of the SCOTUs justices suddenly decided to go rogue and defy a previous ruling? She knows her hands are tied beyond following procedure here.
This.
Almost all SCOTUS justices are, ultimately, institutionalists: they are VERY conscious of the "prestige of the Supreme Court," and are unlikely to do anything to endanger it by themselves. These aren't rebels.
If Sotomayor had tried to overrule her own body's majority here (which I don't think she's bold enough to do anyway), most of the other eight would have advised her strongly to stand down.
SFC13557
NES Member
But Leftists expect their fellow Leftists to follow the plan which is to ignore/defy laws they don't agree with. Too bad Hochul and Murphy will continue to defy SCOTUS and will use their taxpayer's money to continue the fight.
And that is exactly why the ATF 80% shenanigans of late are not likely to stand/survive a court challenge
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, overturning a New York gun safety law. The Court ruled that New York's law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.Jul 12, 2022
SFC13557
NES Member
One of them did with the leak of the Abortion decision, I doubt it was a clerk for a Conservative Justice.
I doubt the leaker was a Justice. Far more likely a clerk on one side or the other.
Was the part in red a quote? I searched that .pdf, and it was not in there. I would eliminate the word with the
SFC13557
NES Member
Correct, that's what I said.
It was definitely a clerk. Justices battle in their opinions and arguments, they’re not a partisan as clerks or politicians. There certainly are partisans but it’s different than partisans outside the court. The justices are friendly and have good relationships and they’re together for decades. The clerks are one year and done.
It’s most likely a sotomayor clerk, she has a history of hiring more stridently partisan clerks from what I’ve read.
SFC13557
NES Member
That's what I thought also but still no ID.
And you won't get one.
They will clean their house, make it clear internally that this doesn't happen again, but will never feed the politics by releasing who.
...because, at heart, all these people are institutionalists. The Prestige...
They'll try hard not to air their dirty laundry. Remember when that leak story was in the news? Roberts looked like he was mortified the entire time. Identifying the leaker would just bring it up again.
It's better left silent, probably, especially since the leak was accurate. The people who have to know who it was, know who it was.
SFC13557
NES Member
But without outing the leaker they encourage another leak by a Leftist clerk during the next anti-Left case like the Harvard anti-Asian case. That will be the next Leftist breakdown.
I think they’ll name the leaker. Their clerkship has already ended, the way to punish the leaker is to out them and destroy their legal career.
