SCOTUS -2A decision in the works....

[MarinePMI]

Hmmm.....

1st Supreme Court Gun-Rights Battle In 10 Years May Transform Legal Landscape

With Justice Brett Kavanaugh replacing Anthony Kennedy, a clear conservative majority could make regulating guns very difficult.

www.npr.org

 

[Milf Dots]

The problem always comes back to the four Fascists on SCOTUS- Vader ginzborg, breyer, sooty-mayor, and kagan.

 

[MarinePMI]

The problem always comes back to the four Fascists on SCOTUS- Vader ginzborg, breyer, sooty-mayor, and kagan.

And Kennedy...who is no longer there. Kavanaugh however, is staunchly pro 2A (looking at his lower rulings and dissents). We might actually see a shift towards the Constitution with him on the bench now; at least with regards to the 2A.

 

[Fig]

The problem always comes back to the four Fascists on SCOTUS- Vader Ginzborg, Slyer Dyer, sooty-mayor, and The Kurgan.

FIFY

Their judicial philosophy DISQUALIFIES them from ever serving as a Judge in our justice system. They cannot raise their right hand and honestly take their oath, because they expressly do not believe in it in-fact.

 

[2ndamendfan]

From what I have read many states are scared shitless over this.

So scared in fact that New York repealed the law in an effort to stop this from going to SCOTUS.

It would appear that 98% of the time that happens SCOTUS ignores the law suit and lets it turn to dust as the issue has been resolved.

In this case it seems blatantly obvious the state crossed the line by a huge margin.

Pretty much all legal experts agree it is going to be SCOTUS kicking New York and states in general in the balls. It is the only reason anyone can see as to why they would agree to hear the case after the law was repealed.

I expect good things from this. I also expect a victory greater than 5-4.

 

[missed]

They must be pushing this as they know ginsvader has the reaper on the door step.

 

[pmclaine]

Que up the NSA material discovered of Kavanaugh taking a leak behind the fraternity that he will be presented with the night before he sides with the communists.

 

[Downtown]

Well, right now the argument is simply whether the case is moot. I'll wager Roberts goes with the four who don't wish to hear the case. That'll end that without really deciding on the merits.

 

[2ndamendfan]

That is true, but remember the court had a chance in October to decline the case because it is moot. Very rare to here arguments on whether moot or not after law has been repealed.

I for one hope they do hear the case in its entirety. It is funny that New York defended the law, until it looked like it could go to SCOTUS.

 

[MarinePMI]

Pretty sure they said they will hear this case; hence the hubbub about it.

NY tried to change the law after the suit was sent to SCOTUS, and then submit the "Letter of Mootness" (WTF that means), but the SCOTUS decided to hear the case anyways...that's pretty telling.

 

[Mwalex]

As others has posted, NY had an "oh shit" moment a little too late to realize what they might have done. It is impressive and encouraging that SCOTUS is going to hear the case and hopefully the liberals/communists get a swift kick in the balls. That being said I am always concerned about unintended consequences in situations like this. How could the communists come out a winner in this situation?

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

I don't have a problem understanding the 2A of the COTUS, so no matter, what group says what,...F U C K T H E M.

 

[pmclaine]

Pretty sure they said they will hear this case; hence the hubbub about it.

NY tried to change the law after the suit was sent to SCOTUS, and then submit the "Letter of Mootness" (WTF that means), but the SCOTUS decided to hear the case anyways...that's pretty telling.

Kind of like that AR case that brought into question of what defines a firearm.

ATF was all hot to press charges against the 80 percent maker than once it was determined the "definition" of firearm does not include an AR upper or lower, nor any semi auto pistol for that matter if you want to push the boundary.

 

[deersniper]

Que up the NSA material discovered of Kavanaugh taking a leak behind the fraternity that he will be presented with the night before he sides with the communists.

I read there was a break in of Roberts house a month before the commie care decision. Then it all got scrubbed from the Internet.

Some people need permanent rehabilitation.

 

[Aries256]

This case will see if I can develop any kind of trust in scotus again.

 

[Switchblade]

If Ginsberg falls asleep during any part of it, she disqualifies herself.

 

[Charger442]

The problem always comes back to the four Fascists on SCOTUS- Vader ginzborg, breyer, sooty-mayor, and kagan.

the one interesting wild card in all of this, for those who have been paying attention over the years, is Eleana Kagan. She was good friends with Scalia, even going as far as to go hunting with him on occasion. My hope is, some of his constitutional originalism rubbed off on her. She has surprised me over the years with a few decisions i was certain she would hold the liberal line on, and she didnt.

Those other three hard commies are slam dunk predictable. Roberts and Kagan are less so but for different reasons. Kagan may side with the good guys on this one, and Roberts may be on the dark side AGAIN.

 

[DavidK]

The problem is Roberts. He F'd us with Obamination Care and may do so again.

 

[pmclaine]

I read there was a break in of Roberts house a month before the commie care decision. Then it all got scrubbed from the Internet.

Some people need permanent rehabilitation.

I remember that break in being reported in the news at the time.

They wouldnt need to be so clumsy.

The NSA would have given them anything they needed.

Theory I heard was his "Central American" adopted kids are really "Republic of Ireland" adopted kids but thats not possible because ROI is very tight on adoption and its not likely he would have went that route unless some laws were broken.

 

[Bender]

How far in the future the boog is, lies in the hands of 9.

Not unlike the Lord of the Rings.

 

[RyanScott]

The problem is Roberts. He F'd us with Obamination Care and may do so again.

Roberts is reluctant to have the court intervene in the place of Congress, which is the proper way of thinking for the Court. The issue is that Congress is unwilling to do its own job. That’s why I think you’ll see the Administrative State shut down by the Court: to force Congress to action.

 

[MtnCreek]

the one interesting wild card in all of this, for those who have been paying attention over the years, is Eleana Kagan. She was good friends with Scalia, even going as far as to go hunting with him on occasion. My hope is, some of his constitutional originalism rubbed off on her. She has surprised me over the years with a few decisions i was certain she would hold the liberal line on, and she didnt.

Those other three hard commies are slam dunk predictable. Roberts and Kagan are less so but for different reasons. Kagan may side with the good guys on this one, and Roberts may be on the dark side AGAIN.

I didn't know that about Kagan and Scalia. I was aware that Ginsburg and Scalia were close friends. Didn't seem to educate Ginsburg any.

Kagan showed that she was on the court for purely political reasons when she didn't recuse herself from the obamacare case.

 

[pmclaine]

Roberts is reluctant to have the court intervene in the place of Congress, which is the proper way of thinking for the Court. The issue is that Congress is unwilling to do its own job. That’s why I think you’ll see the Administrative State shut down by the Court: to force Congress to action.

But he failed in his requirement to judge that law passes Constitutional muster.

His mouth said one thing but it abrogates power back to Congress to do what they want as long as a majority votes for it.

"Republic" is based on "Constitutional Law" not "Majority"

Saying "Ill let the voter to decide Obamacare"?

How about "Ill let the voter determine if there is human bondage of the minority"?

How would that fly?

 

[pmclaine]

I didn't know that about Kagan and Scalia. I was aware that Ginsburg and Scalia were close friends. Didn't seem to educate Ginsburg any.

Kagan showed that she was on the court for purely political reasons when she didn't recuse herself from the obamacare case.

I heard Kagan got appointed SJC for doing excellent work keeping Obamas records sealed.

Obama knows full well unsealing a candidates "sealed" records can get your rivals ejected from electoral contention and he wasnt going to have anyone play his own game on him.

 

[Zoomie]

Well- unfortunately the arguments yesterday mostly focused on the issue of mootness and that NYC has given the plaintiffs everything they asked for. Unsurprisingly, this is where Roberts focused, which doesn't bode well for any good outcomes.

Nothing prevents NYC from returning to the previous restrictions nor does it prevent any other state or city from doing the same thing. States like New York and courts like The Second District have undermined Heller by using unconstitutional "tests" to leave Second Amendment abrogations in effect. They have also subverted the right to carry outside the home, which SCOTUS left unclear in Heller, and the antis have used that opaqueness to undermine that right.

The only bright spot yesterday was Justice Alito's questioning.

This is the first Second Amendment case at SCOTUS in 10 years, and they're on the verge of succumbing to liberals mootness hi jinx. I don't even know what to say anymore, except that SCOTUS continues to slide into irrelevancy. It appears this apparent arm of the liberal status quo has left citizens to the despots.

 

[pmclaine]

Well- unfortunately the arguments yesterday mostly focused on the issue of mootness and that NYC has given the plaintiffs everything they asked for. Unsurprisingly, this is where Roberts focused, which doesn't bode well for any good outcomes.

Nothing prevents NYC from returning to the previous restrictions nor does it prevent any other state or city from doing the same thing. States like New York and courts like The Second District have undermined Heller by using unconstitutional "tests" to leave Second Amendment abrogations in effect. They have also subverted the right to carry outside the home, which SCOTUS left unclear in Heller, and the antis have used that opaqueness to undermine that right.

The only bright spot yesterday was Justice Alito's questioning.

This is the first Second Amendment case at SCOTUS in 10 years, and they're on the verge of succumbing to liberals mootness hi jinx. I don't even know what to say anymore, except that SCOTUS continues to slide into irrelevancy. It appears this apparent arm of the liberal status quo has left citizens to the despots.

Alito and Thomas are pissed that SCOTUS findings are being subverted.

Id expect Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to be on board with them.

Roberts might as well be Ginsburg's colostomy bag.

Kagan has protected SCOTUS "precedent" in the past.

Interesting to she if she sides with law or party.

 

[Fig]

How far in the future the boog is, lies in the hands of 9.

Not unlike the Lord of the Rings.

 

[Crang]

And indeed Roberts may be set to sell us out as always.

Supreme Court shows little appetite for expanding gun rights in arguments over repealed New York regulation

It was the first significant gun-rights case the Supreme Court had heard in nearly a decade.

www.cnbc.com

 

[RyanScott]

But he failed in his requirement to judge that law passes Constitutional muster.

His mouth said one thing but it abrogates power back to Congress to do what they want as long as a majority votes for it.

"Republic" is based on "Constitutional Law" not "Majority"

Saying "Ill let the voter to decide Obamacare"?

How about "Ill let the voter determine if there is human bondage of the minority"?

How would that fly?

His decision in that case wasn’t out of line with precedent and law.

 

[Fig]

His decision in that case wasn’t out of line with precedent and law.

I don't disagree with that statement, except for the fact that if you actually read the rulings from leftists judges you would find that it's also precedent to bring in "facts" like the statements of politicians that directly impinge on the case. "Living Constitution" justices ("Fucking Commie Traitors") rule based on them. Communist judges have struck down Donald Trump's Executive Orders as exercised plenary powers based on them!!! Courts have demanded that he justify his decisions or they become invalid!!!

Since The Obama Administration was on record, dozens of times across the board, arguing that the mandate was NOT a tax, but a legitimate power of the Legislative and Executive branch, and Roberts ruled based on the premise that it was a tax and within their purview, your statement rings totally hollow.

However, it is absolutely evidence why the left has no operating principals, no honor, and no couth whatsoever. They are for whatever pop-policy/political correctness/media cause de jure they think will play to the stupidest Americans.

People like @RyanScott need to be told what the Constitution means. The rest of us can read it and interpret it correctly without going to law school and being corrupted by a legal system that runs on precedent rather than on the clear meaning of laws and what the words actually say.

Honestly, your argument (even though it's true) means absolutely zero, because you have no principals. If you like a different outcome in another case you will reverse your argument without a second thought. There is no authority without guiding principals or we're a country of big men rather than a country of laws.

The Constitution is the largest impediment to leftists creating a perfect utopia and perfecting mankind into angels. They hate it with all their beings and everything they are. Swearing an oath to the thing that defies their entire philosophy makes every single one of them a liar of the most dishonorable sort, including Obama who is on record saying our Constitution needs not to have "negative rights", but "positive ones".

Fuck you.

 

[RyanScott]

It’s bizarre that you demand activism by the court while crying about activism by the court. Of course it was a tax, the Democrats were just lying about it not being one.

 

[pmclaine]

His decision in that case wasn’t out of line with precedent and law.

He allowed the solicitor to change the "selling" language to a new definition in the midst of the case.

I guess in that manner Trump also has benefitted as language "in heat of the election" is discounted in the court of law.

The Gruber videos are damning though in the contempt for the People.

 

[Fig]

No, not activism. I demand an actual judicial philosophy and actual principals. Originalism is an actual judicial philosophy, and a pretty good and defensible one. A Living Constitution is a leftist catch phrase, and not an actual judicial philosophy at all. A legal system based on precedent is one that contemplates it's own irrelevance and failure BY DESIGN.

How is pointing out hypocrisy and bald faced lies are considered "Facts/Evidence" in one case but not in another "activism".

You're totally fucked up my friend. You have no principals, just floating beliefs that are unattached to reality. You should be a Democrat appointed judge. You would be perfect.

 

[Fig]

What you're really saying is that Democrats can lie as much as they want and it doesn't matter and is expected, but anything a Republican says will be used against them in a court of law as a material fact in a case.

You're absolutely correct, but you're a moron for not understanding what it actually means, and for thinking that there's nothing wrong with this. For someone like you "activism" is going against the outcome of the moment you are for, just like your fellow travelers.

 

[RyanScott]

No, not activism. I demand an actual judicial philosophy and actual principals. Originalism is an actual judicial philosophy, and a pretty good and defensible one. A Living Constitution is a leftist catch phrase, and not an actual judicial philosophy at all. A legal system based on precedent is one that contemplates it's own irrelevance and failure BY DESIGN.

How is pointing out hypocrisy and bald faced lies are considered "Facts/Evidence" in one case but not in another "activism".

You're totally fucked up my friend. You have no principals, just floating beliefs that are unattached to reality. You should be a Democrat appointed judge. You would be perfect.

Appellate courts make findings of law, not facts. It would be a bad thing if political rhetoric rather than law was the measure of a words meaning.

What you're really saying is that Democrats can lie as much as they want and it doesn't matter and is expected, but anything a Republican says will be used against them in a court of law as a material fact in a case.

You're absolutely correct, but you're a moron for not understanding what it actually means, and for thinking that there's nothing wrong with this. For someone like you "activism" is going against the outcome of the moment you are for, just like your fellow travelers.

You’re arguing that the statutory and legal meaning of a word can be changed by campaign rhetoric and accusing me of being the one that believes in a living constitution? That’s laughable.

I’m sorry the Supreme Court didn’t produce the policy outcome that we want, but you can stop crying about it now.

 

[pmclaine]

Appellate courts make findings of law, not facts. It would be a bad thing if political rhetoric rather than law was the measure of a words meaning.
You’re arguing that the statutory and legal meaning of a word can be changed by campaign rhetoric and accusing me of being the one that believes in a living constitution? That’s laughable.

I’m sorry the Supreme Court didn’t produce the policy outcome that we want, but you can stop crying about it now.

Seems in this case the appellate courts finding was going to be determined one of "activism" so they abandoned their position.

So its okay to abuse the people until they call you on it.

The People always have to defend their rights with their money while the state abuses the people using the Peoples money.

Bullshit.

 

[RyanScott]

You’re talking about policy preferences and political rhetoric rather than the law because both of you are reactionary rather than conservative.

 

[Fig]

Hardly, and your stark raving mad if you think Trump's "Muslim Travel Ban" was struck down based on law rather than campaign rhetoric. I suggest you actually read the ruling rather than running your keyboard uninformed.

As to the Obamacare decision, Roberts just rejected the administrations argument in full, and substituted his own to shoehorn it into being Constitutional.

So your position is that the actual arguments the litigants make also don't matter? As I said, no principals and no consistency.

When Republican proposes and passes an unconstitutional law I will right there to call it. Right now our legal system is a one way street and a Just Us system.

 

[MtnCreek]

<iframe width="1000" height="750" src="" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Fig]

I'm an ACTUAL liberal who believes in LIMITED government and maximum personal liberty, not a reactionary or a violent leftist moron.

 

[TheGerman]

Assuming they hear it (if I remember right, this is the one that had arguments if it was 'moot' or not) it can go a few ways.

One is that the SCOTUS finally tells everyone what we already know - the 2nd Amendment covers your right to carry a firearm and defend yourself outside of your home.

The other outcome is they make a severely narrow ruling on this specific case, where the infringment has already been ended, and move on.

 

[RyanScott]

Hardly, and your stark raving mad if you think Trump's "Muslim Travel Ban" was struck down based on law rather than campaign rhetoric. I suggest you actually read the ruling rather than running your keyboard uninformed.

As to the Obamacare decision, Roberts just rejected the administrations argument in full, and substituted his own to shoehorn it into being Constitutional.

So your position is that the actual arguments the litigants make also don't matter? As I said, no principals and no consistency.

When Republican proposes and passes an unconstitutional law I will right there to call it. Right now our legal system is a one way street and a Just Us system.

Why would you think I sided with the appellate court in the travel ban case? Are you trying to read my mind? And no the arguments of the litigants don’t necessarily matter.

I'm an ACTUAL liberal who believes in LIMITED government and maximum personal liberty, not a reactionary or a violent leftist moron.

You’re describing policy preferences rather than a relationship with the law.

 

[Inifinty]

I've said it before..

The lesson that men can not justly judge and rule over mankind will be painfully driven home.

It is the historical pattern that repeats.

Tough lesson, tough love.

 

[RyanScott]

I've said it before..

The lesson that men can not justly judge and rule over mankind will be painfully driven home.

It is the historical pattern that repeats.

Tough lesson, tough love.

What do you propose instead?

 

[nn8734]

I’m glad the SOCUS agreed to hear this case, despite the communists (temporarily) withdrawing the bill, thinking the SCOUS would simply reject as they have many other 2A cases. Of course, as soon as that happened, the marxists would immediately ram the legislation through and start enforcement immediately.

hoping liberty gets a shot in the arm with favorable decision next year.

For those expressing suspicion toward Roberts, agree 100%....

wouldn’t entrust him with a decision about a cup of coffee let alone my rights.

 

[blaserman33]

I really worry about Roberts and am not totally convinced on Cavanaugh or Gorsich, they both have sided against constitutionalism and the conventional way they would be “thought” of acting. I think it’s a clear violation to not only not allow you to carry the weapon outside your home but also not allow you to transport the weapon in a locked unfirable condition and I really hope SCOTUS smacks it down, but what happens if they side the other way? Every state will end up with a proposition similar to New York’s law.

 

[Inifinty]

What do you propose instead?

Honestly?

Look past the temporary, get on board with our Makers plan, and stay out of the way of the freight train coming into the station.

 

[nn8734]

I really worry about Roberts and am not totally convinced on Cavanaugh or Gorsich, they both have sided against constitutionalism and the conventional way they would be “thought” of acting. I think it’s a clear violation to not only not allow you to carry the weapon outside your home but also not allow you to transport the weapon in a locked unfirable condition and I really hope SCOTUS smacks it down, but what happens if they side the other way? Every state will end up with a proposition similar to New York’s law.

This is my concern as well....Simply interpreting the 2A at face value, every form of gun control is technically unconstitutional but all three branches have used the “public policy” argument to undermine our freedoms and constitutional protections over and over again.

Hoping for the best but, unfortunately expecting the worst.

 

[pmclaine]

<iframe width="1000" height="750" src="" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wish the Communist shit could have been nipped in the bud back than when common sense was common.

 

[RyanScott]

Honestly?

Look past the temporary, get on board with our Makers plan, and stay out of the way of the freight train coming into the station.

So which mullah do you propose provide the interpretation of the law instead of judges?

This is my concern as well....Simply interpreting the 2A at face value, every form of gun control is technically unconstitutional but all three branches have used the “public policy” argument to undermine our freedoms and constitutional protections over and over again.

Hoping for the best but, unfortunately expecting the worst.

Given that gun control existed during the founding era it’s an uphill battle to say it is ALL illegal.

Wish the Communist shit could have been nipped in the bud back than when common sense was common.

Please narrow it down, I’m tracking somewhere between the end of doctors using leaches to extract bad humours and the election of FDR.