This has gone over my head a little. Doesn't this just mean the case has been ordered to be reviewed? Does that also incur a status of 'vacated' until the review is completed, or something?
It means the 9th circuit has to re-examine the case under the new precedent. If it reverses its decision, the CA magazine ban - and any other magazine ban in its jurisdiction - is unconstitutional. If it affirms its decision, it gives the plaintiff another chance to appeal to the USSC. The USSC is likely to grant cert. Winning.
The 9th remanded the case back to the district court - same instructions. Just delaying the inevitable.
the politicians who instituted such a law should be amenable to being sued under 42 USC 1983-violating a constitutional right under color of state law. Its time to start crushing politicians who violate constitutional rights with punitive damage verdicts
It really wouldn't. The death penalty was available for any number of non malice murder crimes circa the founding era.
You mean if a cop intentionally violated my right to be free from warrantless seizure? Yes, hung by the neck until dead.
I mean.... ok but what does that even mean? Do you think you're going to find me somewhere exhorting the ignoring of the 4th amendment?
As stated: Hanging deaths for taking a public office and intentionally abusing it to deprive the constitutional rights of others used to be a hanging offense. There is nothing UNUSUAL about that, hence it may be CRUEL but its not CRUEL AND UNUSUAL. See how that works? Please note: This is not a good faith accident. In my example we can prove he knew what he was doing and did it anyway. Same for chomos getting the noose. A woodchipper would be unusual and certainly is cruel so its right out. Hanging by the neck until dead is bog standard.
Intentionally trampling on the constitutional rights of a citizen while enrobed in the majesty of the law is not kiting a ****ing check. Its official oppression, deprivation of right under color of law, the person who INTENTIONALLY does it is an oathbreaker and should be tried, convicted, and executed.
I repeat: you're entitled to your opinion. We both know this will never happen, given that the LEO is an agent of the State, the same State you expect to try, convict and execute him.
Ok I'll hold it then since you gave me permission to. If they knew the consequences for tolerating official oppression, willful, intentional, demonstrable official oppression as if they person was snidely whiplash cackling evilly and monologuing, were to be fed to the Tree I imagine pure self interest would kick in at some point.
Funny thing is, execution used to be considered less cruel than life imprisonment. I know which I'd prefer.
