Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

This was kind of a big case denied cert.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-handguns-california-20170626-story.html

The Supreme Court has rejected a major 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s strict limits on carrying concealed guns in public.

The justices turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who contended most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area are being wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home.

The justices let stand a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the “2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court's action "reflects a distressing trend" in the treatment of the 2nd Amendment as a disfavored right. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined his dissent.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

All the righties said we were wrong when we said Gorsuch was another Thomas and not even a Scalia replacement. And we were right. The Courts balance has changed.

 

[unofan]

All the righties said we were wrong when we said Gorsuch was another Thomas and not even a Scalia replacement. And we were right. The Courts balance has changed.

No it hasn't. Kennedy was and remains the swing justice. The balance switches with whoever provides the 5th vote.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No it hasn't. Kennedy was and remains the swing justice. The balance switches with whoever provides the 5th vote.

Uh, huh. You go ahead and believe that. My point is at least Scalia cared about the Constitution. Thomas never has and Gorsuch never will.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

And his writing style is not fun to read. I don't think I've read an opinion of his yet where half the content is, "I'm just asking a question here..."

Not finding a lot of "just asking questions" in this part from his writing on the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act:

“While it is of course our job to apply faithfully the law Congress has written, it is never our job to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced the question that, on everyone’s account, it never faced,” he wrote.

“The proper role of the judiciary,” he concluded, is “to apply, not amend, the work of the People’s representatives.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-first-opinion-20170612-story.html

That screams strict constructionist. Heavens. Did a President actually get one "as advertised". Wait. It's once. He'll come out with his "whathe" moment soon enough.

 

[unofan]

Not finding a lot of "just asking questions" in this part from his writing on the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act:



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-first-opinion-20170612-story.html

That screams strict constructionist. Heavens. Did a President actually get one "as advertised". Wait. It's once. He'll come out with his "whathe" moment soon enough.

We'll see how strict of a constructionist he is when the first 14th amendment case rolls around under his watch. Scalia had no problem ignoring that one.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

We'll see how strict of a constructionist he is when the first 14th amendment case rolls around under his watch. Scalia had no problem ignoring that one.

... "his "whathe" moment soon enough."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Uh, huh. You go ahead and believe that. My point is at least Scalia cared about the Constitution. Thomas never has and Gorsuch never will.

Scalia cared about being thought of as caring about the Constitution. When he wanted to he could pull a new right out of his as-s same as any liberal. "Originalism" has been malarkey from the days of that old political hack Bork. It means "no new rights unless I say so." And then it goes on to bestow every right possible to business and even money itself, while going back to a Lockner's view of the Poors.

No thanks to that old hypocritical rubbish.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Scalia cared about being thought of as caring about the Constitution. When he wanted to he could pull a new right out of his as-s same as any liberal. "Originalism" has been malarkey from the days of that old political hack Bork. It means "no new rights unless I say so." And then it goes on to bestow every right possible to business and even money itself, while going back to a Lockner's view of the Poors.

No thanks to that old hypocritical rubbish.

I'd still rather have him then two Thomas's.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I'd still rather have him then two Thomas's.

Well yes, I'd rather have 1 R vote than 2 Rs.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

When he wanted to he could pull a new right out of his as-s same as any liberal.

I like to call that "a Don Adam call." (Control your audio from 14-17 seconds marks ... NSFW.)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I like to call that "a Don Adam call." (Control your audio from 14-17 seconds marks ... NSFW.)

Very nice.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

This was kind of a big case denied cert.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-handguns-california-20170626-story.html

Difficult to see how even a strict constructionist could argue that 2A has anything to say about carrying concealed. You have the right to carry, but 10A says that a state has the right to pass a reasonable restriction on how you can carry within its borders. That should also naturally extend to what and where you can carry, provided it's not an unreasonable, all-encompassing ban.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That should also naturally extend to what and where you can carry, provided it's not an unreasonable, all-encompassing ban.

Maybe that's how you eventually bring in some sanity. You can't carry near where kids are. Well, kids are in most public places, so effectively you can only carry on kid-free private property.

Nibble away like no smoking laws.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Maybe that's how you eventually bring in some sanity. You can't carry near where kids are. Well, kids are in most public places, so effectively you can only carry on kid-free private property.

I'm thinking of this like a contract, and that would definitely be "unreasonable with respect to scope and geography".

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I'm thinking of this like a contract, and that would definitely be "unreasonable with respect to scope and geography".

A place to start, though, in thinking about it. The state has a compelling interest in not having its citizens, ya know, get killed.

 

[unofan]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

BTW, during SCOTUSBlog's live commentary this morning, there was a comment made by a viewer that epitomizes the problems with the current right.

In a prisoner's rights case, the court split 5-4 on ideological lines, with Kennedy joining the conservatives. Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog noted that was not a good signal for the prisoners, which was a good guess based on past history and one proven to be correct once you read the full order.

The viewer then commented that such a statement was "the kind of not legitimate reporting that has become all too common and to keep her biased opinion to herself" because why would an opinion by the 5 conservatives automatically be bad for the prisoners.

Never mind that all of the justices, except for Gorsuch, have a proven track record and past practice is indicative of future performance.

How do you respond to someone with that warped of a viewpoint.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The state has a compelling interest in not having its citizens, ya know, get killed.

Don't bring Roe v. Wade into this ... < you'll just have to imagine my simpering smirk here >

 

[unofan]

Don't bring Roe v. Wade into this ... < you'll just have to imagine my simpering smirk here >

Since citizenship is granted at birth, you're not a citizen until then. (Boom, lawyered).

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Since citizenship is granted at birth, you're not a citizen until then. (Boom, lawyered).

Does that include ... partial birth ...