U.S. Supreme Court - NYS Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
People who suggest kagan could join the majority at the behest of Roberts and he could assign her to write the opinion don’t understand SCOTUS. You don’t join the majority, then get the opportunity to write whatever you want. All in the majority agree on the opinion and in more complicated cases there may be slight decision where the majority may consist of different groups of justices.

But any written opinion will be supported by the majority of justices and there is ZERO opportunity for someone who is opposed to the opinion to join the majority so they can write a terrible opinion. That’s not at all how the court works

The NY state case is pretty straightforward because they limited the case to a simple question. The Dobbs abortion case which just had oral arguments is a better case to look at. In that case, I would not be surprised if there are 6 votes to overturn Casey (Casey is the abortion law, it overruled Roe) but there may only be 5 to completely over turn a court created right to abortion and return the issue back to the states. There seemed to be 5 who believe abortion is a legislative issue the courts should not be involved in. So it’s likely the Dobbs decision has several parts with Roberts being in the 6 justice majority on some and not in the 5 justice majority which is really the only decision that matters.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
Or maybe NY thinks the fix is in so it doesn't matter how bad she argues the case.

Cynically yours,

GaryS.

Underwood is the solicitor general of NY, so as bad as she is at arguing appellate cases, it’s her job to do it.

I do believe anti gun groups, abortion groups, pro affirmative action groups, those who support the chevron doctrine etc know they are not likely to see a receptive court to their positions. Elections have consequences and the libs ran Hillary and lost SCOTUS for a generation.

McConnell has been setting this situation up for years and the dems lost. Harry Reid changing the filibuster rule to get 3 pointless judges on the DC circuit court of appeals in 2013 owes the game changer. Without that incompetence it would n have been much much more difficult
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,349
Likes
5,585
Location
Stoughton
Was it McDonald where Justice Thomas wrote an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part? It was the one where he wanted to resuscitate the Privileges or Immunities clause in the 14th Amendment. He didn't think that the decision went far enough in terms of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I'd expect Kagan to write the dissent if the Court finds for the plaintiffs. I don't think it would be Sotomayor. Breyer might write a different dissent.

People who suggest kagan could join the majority at the behest of Roberts and he could assign her to write the opinion don’t understand SCOTUS. You don’t join the majority, then get the opportunity to write whatever you want. All in the majority agree on the opinion and in more complicated cases there may be slight decision where the majority may consist of different groups of justices.

But any written opinion will be supported by the majority of justices and there is ZERO opportunity for someone who is opposed to the opinion to join the majority so they can write a terrible opinion. That’s not at all how the court works

The NY state case is pretty straightforward because they limited the case to a simple question. The Dobbs abortion case which just had oral arguments is a better case to look at. In that case, I would not be surprised if there are 6 votes to overturn Casey (Casey is the abortion law, it overruled Roe) but there may only be 5 to completely over turn a court created right to abortion and return the issue back to the states. There seemed to be 5 who believe abortion is a legislative issue the courts should not be involved in. So it’s likely the Dobbs decision has several parts with Roberts being in the 6 justice majority on some and not in the 5 justice majority which is really the only decision that matters.
 

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,060
Likes
3,752
I’m afraid that the Robert’s court will once again tailor a very narrow decision. I think Roberts is a Federalist at heart and wants to leave as much as possible up to the states. They will find the NY law unconstitutional on the grounds that it allows a single officer to determine a person's right to carry and that it is inconsistent across jurisdictions.

NY will correct the issue by modeling the MA law, which gives the person the right to petition the courts when the licensing officer rejects them on suability grounds (even though the Courts will invariably find against the plaintiff). NY will also make sure that the law is consistent across all jurisdictions.

Since the MA legislature is controlled by the large urban areas, MA will then adjust their law so that all the restrictions that the big cities impose (multiple letters of recommendation, live fire training, whatever else they can come it with to make it more difficult) will be incorporated into state law so that all the towns will have to enforce them.

I’m afraid that the results will actually end up with an even more restrictive licensing regime for MA rather than less.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
Was it McDonald where Justice Thomas wrote an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part? It was the one where he wanted to resuscitate the Privileges or Immunities clause in the 14th Amendment. He didn't think that the decision went far enough in terms of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I'd expect Kagan to write the dissent if the Court finds for the plaintiffs. I don't think it would be Sotomayor. Breyer might write a different dissent.

I’m not sure. I definitely don’t think Thomas, Scalia or Alito were happy with the limitations of heller or McDonald but they couldn’t go further and keep Roberts and Kennedy on board. Kennedy especially always tried to find a middle ground rather than deciding on the constitution, statute or principle. Probably a nice guy but he was timid as a judge, trying to mediate rather than issue a judgement

If I were betting, I’d bet Breyer writes the decent for the 3 they all join and sotomayor writes a separate one kagan and Breyer probably don’t join because it will be a partisan political screed.
 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,738
Likes
2,414
Location
NH
I’m afraid that the Robert’s court will once again tailor a very narrow decision. I think Roberts is a Federalist at heart and wants to leave as much as possible up to the states. They will find the NY law unconstitutional on the grounds that it allows a single officer to determine a person's right to carry and that it is inconsistent across jurisdictions.

NY will correct the issue by modeling the MA law, which gives the person the right to petition the courts when the licensing officer rejects them on suability grounds (even though the Courts will invariably find against the plaintiff). NY will also make sure that the law is consistent across all jurisdictions.

Since the MA legislature is controlled by the large urban areas, MA will then adjust their law so that all the restrictions that the big cities impose (multiple letters of recommendation, live fire training, whatever else they can come it with to make it more difficult) will be incorporated into state law so that all the towns will have to enforce them.

I’m afraid that the results will actually end up with an even more restrictive licensing regime for MA rather than less.
Hopefully you’re wrong because Roberts shouldn’t be the swing vote.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,882
Likes
24,494
The freight trains of "desired public policy" vs. "what the constitution requires" are headed full steam at each other and headed for an epic wreck of a decision.

The justices have done a very good job of making it hard to rationalize a decision against us, but I would not be surprised if they find a way. If our side wins, expect it to take years for an unimportant NYC resident to get a licensing appointment.
 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,738
Likes
2,414
Location
NH
The freight trains of "desired public policy" vs. "what the constitution requires" are headed full steam at each other and headed for an epic wreck of a decision.

The justices have done a very good job of making it hard to rationalize a decision against us, but I would not be surprised if they find a way. If our side wins, expect it to take years for an unimportant NYC resident to get a licensing appointment.
Kind of like Jeffrey Epstein -- if the govt doesn't want you to get justice, it will find a way to make sure you don't get justice.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
31,783
Likes
25,122
Was it McDonald where Justice Thomas wrote an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part? It was the one where he wanted to resuscitate the Privileges or Immunities clause in the 14th Amendment. He didn't think that the decision went far enough in terms of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I'd expect Kagan to write the dissent if the Court finds for the plaintiffs. I don't think it would be Sotomayor. Breyer might write a different dissent.

Thomas writing a concurrent opinion? Say it isn’t so. Lol
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
89
Likes
65
The oral arguments are here. <em>New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen</em> Oral Argument

It was very clear that day, the NY licensing scheme is going to be stuck down, the only question is how the justices issue their ruling. We want SCOTUS to say 2A cases need to be decided on a text, history and tradition standard and not some bs rational basis, intermediate scrutiny etc as the 9th, 4th and other appeals courts have.

Don’t bet on Sotomayor deciding in favor of the 2A position
Personally I don’t know if I’d want text & tradition being the litmus test, there are a whole host of historical situations that they could then use to justify the status quo.

Ideally I’ll like to see them go for strict scrutiny, suppressors, SBRs/SBSs in the NFA could all face a serious shot of being struck out.

Hell the Hughes Amendment could be in danger under strict scrutiny.

“Your honor, from the period of 1934 to 1986 when machine guns were still able to be produced for civilian ownership, registered lawful machine guns were never used in a crime. With that in mind how can a blanket ban be held as narrowly tailored?”

Tldr IMO strict scrutiny is probably much better for us compared to text and tradition. Alas unfortunately I think text and tradition is what we’ll get.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
11,299
Likes
5,548
Location
Green Eggs and...
"Take the guns first, due process later. Oh, and ban those bump stocks too."

Trump is/was anti-gun.

Uncomfortable truths for NESers for $500

I will say, Trumps big contribution has been SCOTUS. Regardless of his politics, distasteful personality, etc, that is a huge victory for liberty. I don’t think “conservative” justices are in anyway immune from using the courts as a political weapon(many are law and order boot-lickers) but on the whole they are often better than liberal ones, IMO.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
18,839
Likes
19,709
Location
North Shore
Uncomfortable truths for NESers for $500

I will say, Trumps big contribution has been SCOTUS. Regardless of his politics, distasteful personality, etc, that is a huge victory for liberty. I don’t think “conservative” justices are in anyway immune from using the courts as a political weapon(many are law and order boot-lickers) but on the whole they are often better than liberal ones, IMO.
We're about to find out.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
Trump is/was anti-gun.

Trump is generally for/against whatever gets him praise or applause at the time. He’s lived most of his life in NYC and surrounded by liberals, so he’d share those views to get their agreement. He really doesn’t understand issues at all, especially complex ones so his views are ever changing and simplistic.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom