Garys
NES Member
You would think, but you would be wrong,
Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Seems this should cover a LOT:
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Seems this should cover a LOT:
How much drugs is Mitt Romney on
That guys brain is fried.
If I don't contribute anything , how much of your money should I be able to vote myself ?
You good with a fourth of it , how about half ? Maybe 70 percent?
The sky is the limit when I need a new flat screen.
My friend worked at the MA. welfare department .
He had people coming in that were third generation on welfare. And their kids will never work, and the kids kids will never work.
You happy with then deciding how much of a cut of what you worked for they get ?
You are a generous man to give so much .
Guess your family doesn't need it .
Alexander Hamilton famously said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end ."
— Nadeen T-Flores (@NadeenTF) November 7, 2012
"[Democracy] can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." -A. Tyler
— Paul McCord (@jpmccord) November 7, 2012
"When the public discovers they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the [American] experiment will be over"-Tocqueville 1838
— Rufus Kings (@RufusKings1776) November 7, 2012
"Democracy will cease to exist when people realize they can vote themselves more money"- Thomas Jefferson #welfare
— Ryan Amidon (@carramrod94) November 8, 2012
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin
— Shannon O'Sullivan (@irishchick34) November 7, 2012
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. -Alexander Tytler (paraphrase)
— varvel (@varvel) November 2, 2012
?Ummm, is he any different than he was 30 years ago??? You people think that because someone has D or R next to their name they always do X or Y. Not the case. If Charlie Baker got elected Senator from Montana, do you think he'd be a gun rights champion???
RTFC.
1. Before people ask, this is what happened. SCOTUS ruled in June, 8 days later NY state passing an absurd bill which makes it impossible to carry bet making A LOT of places “sensitive places” where guns are not allowed.
2. Federal district court judge issues TRO against many parts of the NY bill. NY state appeals to 2nd circuit court of appeals 3 judge panel to stay (pause) the district court TRO. The TRO stops the enforcement of the NY state bill, the stay by the 2nd blocks that TRO and allows the NY bill to go into effect.
3. This appeal to SCOTUS is to lift the 2nd circuit stay and allow the district court TRO to be in effect (blocking parts of the NY state bill) while the case is heard by the district court.
4. SCOTUS wants briefs regarding the petition (appeal, from #3 above?) to lift the stay in the NY state Bruen response bill
They need to issue a blistering ruling as a shot across the bow of insubordinate lower courts and 'insurrectionist' state legislatures.A ruling by SCOTUS is important even though it’s only on a TRO without the cases being heard on the merits yet. SCOTUS needs to slap down their judges who ignore the NYSRPA vs bruen ruling.
Just looked this up.
They need to issue a blistering ruling as a shot across the bow of insubordinate lower courts and 'insurrectionist' state legislatures.
Just to be clear, #4 is the latest, which is a good thing for our side. Right?
SCOTUS wants briefs regarding the petition to lift the stay in the NY state bruen response bill
View: https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1607757314894725122?s=61&t=lOAADjV44pjtIIH-jhpirw
Before people ask, this is what happened. SCOTUS ruled in June, 8 days later NY state passing an absurd bill which makes it impossible to carry bet making A LOT of places “sensitive places” where guns are not allowed.
Federal district court judge issues TRO against many parts of the NY bill. NY state appeals to 2nd circuit court of appeals 3 judge panel to stay (pause) the district court TRO. The TRO stops the enforcement of the NY state bill, the stay by the 2nd blocks that TRO and allows the NY bill to go into effect.
This appeal to SCOTUS is to lift the 2nd circuit stay and allow the district court TRO to be in effect (blocking parts of the NY state bill) while the case is heard by the district court.
NJ actually passed a worse bill last week than the abomination NY passed in July. There are two cases in NJ to block the NJ from being enforced, those cases will be heard over the next week. A ruling by SCOTUS is important even though it’s only on a TRO without the cases being heard on the merits yet. SCOTUS needs to slap down their judges who ignore the NYSRPA vs bruen ruling. Hopefully the mag case in RI follows soon. The judge in that case explicitly used interest balancing which SCOTUS said was not to be used.
Mark Smith has a pragmatic view of this latest event and it seems he is leaning toward thinking the plaintiff's emergency appeal may be denied on procedural grounds.
Mark Smith has a pragmatic view of this latest event and it seems he is leaning toward thinking the plaintiff's emergency appeal may be denied on procedural grounds.
If SCOTUS does get in the middle then it will send a pretty clear signal to the other circuits to get in line and do their jobs instead of being activists.
Yeah and sadly what it means is that we'll end up with 10 more years of fighting for 2A rights while waiting for a case to make it to SCOTUS. I think putting a little fear of god in them that they must adhere to the Bruen precedent might go a long way to curtail the lower courts from thumbing their noses at SCOTUS decisions.
Just looked this up.
In 2010 the Court rejected argument in McDonald v. Chicago to overrule the established precedent of Slaughterhouse and decided instead to incorporate the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In this particular situation, I think NY and NJ have forced the issue to a point SCOTUS can’t ignore it. It NY passed a bill which increased license fees to $1k, hours of training 100 etc. those are increases in the hoops to jump. SCOTUS talked about restrictions in the oral arguments for bruen and in the decision. The discussion was about “sensitive places” and (I believe Thomas) said ‘you can’t say the island of Manhattan is a sensitive place’. They actually went far beyond that, and they were obnoxiously taunting SCOTUS when they passed it. NJ did the same and passed an even more extreme bill.
SCOTUS definitely should act. It’s not how they like to handle things as they like to allow lower courts to resolve issues without the need to get involved. But NY and now NJ forced it and this is a more unique situation than most.
It would seem where a Sua Sponte response by SCOTUS would be appropriate, but they apparently aren't going to move in that direction.
It's going to be "Whack A Mole" for a while as NY, NJ, probably MA, and others try to figure out a way to thwart the decision.
I would be against them ruling summarily on cases that aren't specifically brought to them, just as a question of constitutional precedent.
Although I'd love them to smack MA down personally, I don't think it's good for SCOTUS to take on cases without due process.
The case has been brought before them and decided. That case was Bruen and it is now the law of the land. It would be the same as if a state decided that they were going to ignore Miranda.
Miranda is still being adjudicated. SCOTUS ruled on portions of it just this past summer, in Vega v. Tekoh. And five subsequent cases have modified it; states have never stopped challenging it. But it's apples to oranges, anyway, since Miranda itself was an amalgamation of four similar cases from four different judicial districts, so SCOTUS did what you wanted them to in Miranda. All those districts had to comply at once.
They didn't in Bruen. Bruen technically only relates to NYS, because they didn't merge it with other similar cases. States that are deciding to challenge it are within their rights, technically, until SCOTUS strikes them down one by one OR until they get tired of it and choose to hear a new, merged case; states that are choosing not to challenge it are acknowledging they'd lose. The "law of the land" in Bruen is the text/history test, not the specifics about NYS' discriminatory licensing scheme. The other details still need to work themselves out, unfortunately.
It’s hard for me to understand how the RI guy can get away with pretending the new rule doesn’t apply, but then the inner workings of the federal courts are not my thing.One issue is a few courts, the fed district court in RI for one, are still using interest balancing which Thomas very clearly said could not be used. With respect to the NY and NJ cases with sensitive places, the bills clearly go way way beyond what SCOTUS said in oral arguments and the decision.
It’s hard for me to understand how the RI guy can get away with pretending the new rule doesn’t apply, but then the inner workings of the federal courts are not my thing.
Because he's an anti-gun leftist, activist Judge who's doing the Anti's bidding I believe.It’s hard for me to understand how the RI guy can get away with pretending the new rule doesn’t apply, but then the inner workings of the federal courts are not my thing.
He won’t get away with it but he can in the short term. That opinion he put out was openly defying SCOTUS and he didn’t hide it at all.. it’s so bad I wouldn’t be shocked if the 1sr circuit overturns him
It’s hard for me to understand how the RI guy can get away with pretending the new rule doesn’t apply, but then the inner workings of the federal courts are not my thing.
This is what I'm unsure about: what happens to him? Obviously his decision will get overturned (I'm not worried about that), but does he get censured or reprimanded? And if so, does it have any teeth? I would imagine not, but if he stopped getting cases assigned, that would have more impact.
They can have cases removed from their docket, and given cr*p cases to adjudicate, or no cases at all.
This is what I'm unsure about: what happens to him? Obviously his decision will get overturned (I'm not worried about that), but does he get censured or reprimanded? And if so, does it have any teeth? I would imagine not, but if he stopped getting cases assigned, that would have more impact.
I just don't know how that kind of thing works. Jackson is our circuit justice, but I doubt even she knows what she's able to do; she probably only just learned where her parking space is.