Rather than the hoped-for clarification of the Second Amendment and the resolution of numerous Circuit Court splits, the Supreme Court denied cert on all ten outstanding petitions in Second Amendment cases. To no one's surprise, Justice Thomas issued a scathing dissent in Rogers v. Grewal, pointing out once again how lower courts are simply disregarding Heller and MacDonald. He was joined in this dissent by Kavanaugh. We know that there are four very solid pro 2A Justices on the Court, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. That being the case, why were all these petitions denied (it only takes four votes to grant cert)? The only reason I case see for the Court's reluctance to take another Second Amendment case is that they now fear – or know – that Chief Justice Roberts has gone wobbly. Chief Justice John Roberts (Senate Television) We are thus back to the same situation we faced when Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote. That means nothing is likely going to get be granted review because of the fear that Roberts would, as is becoming his custom, chicken out and vote to gut Heller and MacDonald. The pro-2A minority has made the calculation that it’s better to deny cert to these cases than to risk a decision that could adversely affect gun rights. This situation will only embolden courts like the Ninth Circuit to continue to ignore the Heller decision. Unless and until there’s a new justice on the Supreme Court, about the only way forward will be if a conservative circuit (such as the Fifth) takes a page from the left’s playbook and issues a sweeping pro-2A decision, knowing that the Supreme Court is paralyzed and will not act on it. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen. Here is the AP's report: The Supreme Court on Monday passed up several challenges to federal and state gun control laws, over the dissent of two conservative justices. Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" beyond the home. Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a dissent in the court’s denial of a New Jersey resident’s appeal seeking the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Rather than take on the constitutional issue, Thomas wrote, "the Court simply looks the other way." https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...s-cert-in-all-pending-second-amendment-cases/ │June 15, 2020 So it seems this shows either an "unwillingness" on the part of the so-called "conservative" justices to expand, or more specifically define, 2A Constitutional rights, or it demonstrates that they are afraid if it did actually come up for a vote, they might not actually have the necessary support on the court for a favorable ruling, and fear lasting damage if the court took up any of these cases. Some of you may be asking about Roberts. The uncomfortable fact is that there are many Republicans who are not really what one would call "conservative", and only want lower taxes and less cumbersome regulations on businesses, but are fine with all the other progressive social stuff, and don't really believe the little people can be trusted with freedom. Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, which pretty much tells you all you need to know. A "conservative" who comes from New York is not the type of conservative you know. (This even applies to Trump to some extent, although that's a separate subject)
The united state supreme court, much like all other branches and organizations of the government, is highly political and politicized, despite all of its claims to the contrary. This decision is not the least bit surprising to one who has been paying attention. The justices who align with the conservative side of the divide are uncertain if they have sufficient votes to achieve a majority outcome in favor of the second amendment, and as such are biding their time until such point another justice who aligns with the liberal side of the divide is removed or retired, which will serve to secure a conservative majority in support of the right to keep and bear arms held by the people.
And at the same time, declares that 'Sex' includes sexual orientation and transgender identity! Yeah, what a GREAT conservative Supreme Court! What a JOKE!
Roberts suffers two problems 1) he wants leftwing legal scholars total him "clever" as he was deemed when he allowed Obamacare by claiming it was a tax, even though the Obama attorneys strenuously denied that 2) he sees state voters as stupid and if they vote for idiots who ban guns, he wants them to suffer that stupidity
What a mess of whatever... I just had to laugh at the line in bold.. Brett O'Kavanaugh - Birthplace Washington DC Samuel Alito - Birthplace Trenton NJ Neil Gorsuch - Birthplace Denver Colorado Real HOTBEDS of conservatism there....
To be fair, Kavanaugh is not exactly a conservative in the same sense as those in flyover country. He's more like one of those big city Libertarians, in some way, sticking to principles. And to be fair, Denver was a different place just a few decades ago, had a more wild west mentality and used to be very pro-gun. Alito was born to Italian immigrants and definitely did not come from the New Jersey elite, so of course he could be more conservative. Reality can be a little complicated, but I still hold to what I wrote.
No, I think you're unable to comprehend realities that are just a little more complicated than being totally simple, here.
The reality is that Trump FAILED to stack the court. Best of luck getting the WH back before Clarence shuffles off...
Emphasis mine of course. Are you seriously trying to equate Kavanaugh's beliefs to libertarian thought?
I don't personally care, this should be up to local cities, counties, and states anyway in my book. America is way too vast and diverse both geographically and culturally for the Federal Government to be making very many blanket rulings that effect everybody living here equally. What makes sense in NYC doesn't necessarily make sense in Upstate NY, or even more rural America like Alaska or Montana or something. I personally don't think things like gun regulations should be able to extend any further than the county level at the highest. Even States themselves are way too diverse geographically and culturally for the State to make blanket regulations that effect everybody. The Adirondacks are not NYC, Anchorage Alaska is not Tok Alaska, etc. As I've said before folks should be careful with championing the SC to make rulings on things. Even though you may support them making blanket Federal policy for the things you personally like, just be aware that if you want them to have that power then they are eventually going to make a blanket Federal ruling on something you probably don't like. And since it's Federal then it effects you whether you like it or not regardless of where you live. I personally would rather have local officials who are much closer to the local communities making policies over the Federal Government in DC who likely can't even name the Mayor of your small town yet are making decisions that effect you.
Some court watchers are wondering if Roberts is deliberately tabling issues that could damage Republicans in the upcoming elections. Like many Chief Justices before him, he's walking a tight rope and often seems to be splitting differences. I almost feel sorry for him, trying to ride herd on Right wing radicals.
Hmmm... so pretty much business as usual then. If the Supreme Court brings down a decision you agree with its doing its job. If it doesn't its politicized and has a ... left, right, up, down, backwards, forwards (insert your hated political direction of choice here) bias or agenda.
I hate to think of which two judicial abominations Hillary would have appointed. RBG may not make the end of Trump's first term, and Sotomayor isn't that healthy either.
I imagine Merrick Garland would have gotten his overdue appointment... Not sure who else was on the list, but they would have been fine. Sotomayor has had Type 1 diabetes since her youth... It's easily handled by medicine for most people and she's only 66. Dream on... RBG can make it 5 months... tough old bird... then she can retire in peace.
You don't think there are already plans in place to replace both of the older conservative justices via retirement if Trump loses?
I guarantee you there are plans to replace retiring justices on both sides. Not sure of your point... Nobody can make those justices retire.
