US Supreme Court OT 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
2,959
Likes
5,372
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
A.) They are desperate not to have gun control related cases make it before SCOTUS and be judged on the merits.
B.) In the future if they have the Hill and the White House they well certainly try for restructuring to weight SCOTUS in their favor, especially if Trump gets another justice before he is gone.

:emoji_tiger:
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
66,987
Likes
23,629
Sleeper agents trying to enrage the justices enough to make pro-2A rulings. That's the only excuse for that shit.
Would be funny if this backfires on them, there's good reason for liberal justices to be offended by this idea, as well... turning the supreme court into a circus isn't a sound idea regardless of political alignment.

-Mike
 

mlaboss

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,118
Likes
1,668
Would be funny if this backfires on them, there's good reason for liberal justices to be offended by this idea, as well... turning the supreme court into a circus isn't a sound idea regardless of political alignment.

-Mike
"Stop being so political or else we'll make the court even MORE political!"
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,775
Likes
2,585
Location
western mass
I'm guessing by the threat level bright red in the liberal camp that they are really worried about the NYS pistol and rifle case? Isn't the supreme court supposed to be a co-equal branch of government?
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
14,857
Likes
7,656
Location
Southern NH
Just read their amicus brief. They really did argue to side with them by threatening the court. I can’t imagine that will play particularly well with even the judges who do tend to agree with them. Bold move. Pretty asinine too.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
597
Likes
323
Yeah, just go and basically threaten the SCOTUS. Lol! Idiotic if they really want things to go their way.
 

crispnipz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
321
Likes
358
Location
Medford
Some of the amici are interesting, including one guy, Neil Goldfarb, who wants in on oral arguments because he's uncovered new information that will make the court reverse Heller.
it seems undeniable that it does conclusively show that the right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protects could reasonably have been understood as a right to serve in the militia
:rolleyes: Interesting, I've never heard of a country that didn't allow its citizens to serve in the military but thank goodness for 2A so that won't happen here.

 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
14,857
Likes
7,656
Location
Southern NH
Full docket: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of New York, New York, et al.

Some of the amici are interesting, including one guy, Neil Goldfarb, who wants in on oral arguments because he's uncovered new information that will make the court reverse Heller.
That one is pretty funny. I especially like how he says because Heller is "hotly disputed", that it warrants re-examination. Because that makes sense. They should probably re-examine all non unanimous rulings if that was the logic. Especially relatively recent rulings in which the majority of the justices from Heller are still there now. I'm sure they'd interpret both the 2A and their ruling differently in light of his brief...

:rolleyes: Interesting, I've never heard of a country that didn't allow its citizens to serve in the military but thank goodness for 2A so that won't happen here.
Yep, the the words "keep and" were just mistakes. How dumb of us. "Keep and bear arms" is obviously the same thing as "serve in militia". Everyone knows that.
 

Cap'n Mike

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
456
Location
Mass
So much Bu!!$h!t from Senator Whitehouse.

“The Court and the country have witnessed an accompanying explosion of strategic “faux” litigation—cases fabricated to bring issues before the Court when litigants presume it will give them policy victories. For example, we have seen flocks of “freedom-based public interest law” organizations that exist only to change public policy through litigation, and which often do not disclose their funders.12 We have seen behavioral signals, like litigants who rush to lose cases in lower courts “as quickly as practicable and without argument, so that [they] can expeditiously take their claims to the Supreme Court” (ordinarily, in litigation, litigants seek to win).

Sounds exactly like United States vs Miller, the decision that made the infringements of the NFA lawful.
View: https://youtu.be/H1RjyZ_iZ68
 

SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
5,293
Likes
3,651
Location
North of Boston
Some of the amici are interesting, including one guy, Neil Goldfarb, who wants in on oral arguments because he's uncovered new information that will make the court reverse Heller.
He is a little full of himself. Quite a few of his references under "Table of Authorities" are himself. [puke]
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
5,431
Likes
1,490
Location
Western Ma
That one is pretty funny. I especially like how he says because Heller is "hotly disputed", that it warrants re-examination. Because that makes sense. They should probably re-examine all non unanimous rulings if that was the logic. Especially relatively recent rulings in which the majority of the justices from Heller are still there now. I'm sure they'd interpret both the 2A and their ruling differently in light of his brief...



Yep, the the words "keep and" were just mistakes. How dumb of us. "Keep and bear arms" is obviously the same thing as "serve in militia". Everyone knows that.

Hotly contested....right, mention that you feel Roe v Wade should be re-examined and let me know hw that works out.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
9,984
Likes
4,569
Location
Granite State of Mind
So much Bu!!$h!t from Senator Whitehouse.

“The Court and the country have witnessed an accompanying explosion of strategic “faux” litigation—cases fabricated to bring issues before the Court when litigants presume it will give them policy victories. For example, we have seen flocks of “freedom-based public interest law” organizations that exist only to change public policy through litigation, and which often do not disclose their funders.12 We have seen behavioral signals, like litigants who rush to lose cases in lower courts “as quickly as practicable and without argument, so that [they] can expeditiously take their claims to the Supreme Court” (ordinarily, in litigation, litigants seek to win).

Sounds exactly like United States vs Miller, the decision that made the infringements of the NFA lawful.
View: https://youtu.be/H1RjyZ_iZ68
"See-LO-am Springs"?

LMAO... It's "SI-lome"

I grew up about 150 miles south of there, in the Ouachita Mountains. Dan Rather was reporting on a plane crash about 15 miles from my home and called it the "OO-ah-CHEE-ta" Mountains. ;)
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
1,529
Likes
814
Right. The one surefire way to get 9 justices on the same page is to attack the court’s integrity. They don’t tolerate that shit.
Yeah, but do you really think Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and/or Kagan are gonna vote pro 2A just because of a veiled threat, that can't be delivered until 2023 at the earliest? Or that John Roberts won't piss his robes and vote anti-2A, even tho he was in the majority with Heller and Macdonald?

Even without Roberts, I could see Kagan voting with the conservatives. She seems to be the most libertarian of the Democrat President appointees and apparently went with Scalia to his hunting club.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
1,529
Likes
814
I'm guessing by the threat level bright red in the liberal camp that they are really worried about the NYS pistol and rifle case? Isn't the supreme court supposed to be a co-equal branch of government?
It's only equal when the left has the majority, otherwise it's illegitimate.

Yes, the anti gunners are terrified of the NY case, they know there's no excuse that justified its existence when about every other state or locality allows those who own guns to transport them. That's why NYC changed the law, but given the overwhelming leftness of NYC, they could easily change it back.

Even if SCOTUS didn't dismiss the case, it's all but a guarantee if Dems get the White House and the senate they will pack the court. Since it's no longer a 4-4-1 or 5-4 liberal majority, they are convulsing at the thought of more SCOTUS rulings not going their way and they need the judiciary at all levels to proceed long after they're all gone.

Remember, to the new Socialist Democrats, there can be no dissent.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,775
Likes
2,585
Location
western mass
Full docket: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of New York, New York, et al.

Some of the amici are interesting, including one guy, Neil Goldfarb, who wants in on oral arguments because he's uncovered new information that will make the court reverse Heller.
Interestingly in the Heller case a number of republican senators and representatives filed an amicus brief and I wonder if we will see that again or if it will be crickets.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
Yeah, but do you really think Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and/or Kagan are gonna vote pro 2A just because of a veiled threat, that can't be delivered until 2023 at the earliest? Or that John Roberts won't piss his robes and vote anti-2A, even tho he was in the majority with Heller and Macdonald?

Even without Roberts, I could see Kagan voting with the conservatives. She seems to be the most libertarian of the Democrat President appointees and apparently went with Scalia to his hunting club.
I think it's not totally impossible, given the extraordinary attempts from the left to quash this case and delegitimize the court, for there to be a unanimous or near-unanimous ruling that results in a very narrow extension of 2A to "bear" in addition to "keep".

Something like, "not all who join this opinion agreed with Heller, but given its findings, there also exists a right to bear arms in addition to a right to keep them, although we will not expound on the details of the extent of that right."

Remember, Caetano was a unanimous ruling of this sort, that said stun guns were protected by 2A. The liberal justices may decide that uniting behind a small extension of 2A while standing up in defense of the court's independence is better than letting the conservatives win anyway and write a sweeping ruling that pushes 2A much further and polarizes the public's view of the court. Roberts is much more of a uniter than a divider, so he may agree, and threaten to dump the case for mootness if the court's other conservatives don't play along.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,109
Likes
3,400
Location
My forest stronghold
I think it's not totally impossible, given the extraordinary attempts from the left to quash this case and delegitimize the court, for there to be a unanimous or near-unanimous ruling that results in a very narrow extension of 2A to "bear" in addition to "keep".

Something like, "not all who join this opinion agreed with Heller, but given its findings, there also exists a right to bear arms in addition to a right to keep them, although we will not expound on the details of the extent of that right."
Remember, Caetano was a unanimous ruling of this sort, that said stun guns were protected by 2A. The liberal justices may decide that uniting behind a small extension of 2A while standing up in defense of the court's independence is better than letting the conservatives win anyway and write a sweeping ruling that pushes 2A much further and polarizes the public's view of the court. Roberts is much more of a uniter than a divider, so he may agree, and threaten to dump the case for mootness if the court's other conservatives don't play along.
In Caetano, the SJC effectively tried to reverse Heller and thumbed their nose at SCOTUS. It's as if their ruling was based upon Breyer's dissent, not the majority opinion. I still recall Justice Botsford's quip in another case ..'well at least the supreme court says it's an individual right'.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
In Caetano, the SJC effectively tried to reverse Heller and thumbed their nose at SCOTUS. It's as if their ruling was based upon Breyer's dissent, not the majority opinion. I still recall Justice Botsford's quip in another case ..'well at least the supreme court says it's an individual right'.
Agreed 100%, but in Caetano the liberals could have refused to go along to get along, forced a full written decision, and given forceful dissents repudiating Heller/McDonald and also attempting to distinguish Caetano from Heller.

Instead, we got a unanimous per curiam opinion affirming that 2A is the law of the land and that you can't ban an entire class of weapon. So the liberal wing of the court might be OK with moving the 2A ball forward slowly and incrementally in order to avoid a 5-4 split that results in a broad, unfavorable ruling.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,096
Likes
6,527
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
829
Likes
268
Location
Just North of Boston
I think it's not totally impossible, given the extraordinary attempts from the left to quash this case and delegitimize the court, for there to be a unanimous or near-unanimous ruling that results in a very narrow extension of 2A to "bear" in addition to "keep".

Something like, "not all who join this opinion agreed with Heller, but given its findings, there also exists a right to bear arms in addition to a right to keep them, although we will not expound on the details of the extent of that right."

Remember, Caetano was a unanimous ruling of this sort, that said stun guns were protected by 2A. The liberal justices may decide that uniting behind a small extension of 2A while standing up in defense of the court's independence is better than letting the conservatives win anyway and write a sweeping ruling that pushes 2A much further and polarizes the public's view of the court. Roberts is much more of a uniter than a divider, so he may agree, and threaten to dump the case for mootness if the court's other conservatives don't play along.
This is not a line of reasoning I support. Accepting a narrowed ruling in the interest of unanimity is playing right into the Dem's hands. The Dem's focus, since cert was granted in this case, has been to pull out all the stops while trying to limit the damage caused by a ruling in this case. A ruling that could be supported by the liberal justices is the best outcome they could hope for outside of a dismissal for mootness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom