Looks like the Senate Democrats won. Roberts to join the 4 liberal judges and declare gun case moot.

This doesn't mean the issue is settled. All this means is they're kicking the can down the road again.

 

What this decision actually means, is Donald Trump is free to threaten to united state supreme court, or truly any court in the united states, that may rule against his policies, and there is nothing that can be done to stop him from doing such. If the house can threaten the united state supreme court and face no repercussions for such, then the president of the united states can as well.

 

Dead wrong of course. The confess can do nothing of the sort on its own you'll need the president as well. And the way your side has been acting it may be a while before you get them again.

 

He already could do that? There aren't really repercussions, it's just highly unadvised to do. Like this isn't the first time a president has ignored the wishes of the court, and the court has always been at the mercy of the other branches of government. The reason why this doesn't usually happen is because if the courts become politicized, then they lose their legitimacy.

 

And due to the sequence of events that transpired in the manner that they did, there will now always be the question of whether or not the united state supreme court allowed itself to succumb to political pressure and sacrifice its legitimacy.

 

He doesn't have a clue about anything. Give yourself a laugh, go search his previous threads.

 

Oh I'm well aware of Golem. This isn't the only forum that I've seen him in.

 

There is no law in this case for which they can consider constitutionality. It was removed.The court can only judge the constitutionality of existing laws. What are they supposed to do?

What kind of a victory do you think you got?
The law has already been removed because it would have been overturned. Looks like your little law lost long ago.

 

This now sets a precedent that, basically any gun law can be past in blue states and just wait until the supreme court steps in and then repeal it, have them drop it and put it back in place again. That means we won.

 

Actually SCOTUS dropped it on the condition that NY would not re-institute the law again. So no, it doesn't do that. If they were to do that then SCOTUS would have every right to hear it even if they removed the law.

 

That's always been the case, duh.
Legislatures can pass laws.
Courts judge them.
Legislators have terms and elections.

 

Do tell why congress would allow the court to usurp such power to rule on hypotheticals aka dead laws?

The court knows that even if NYC puts the law back up they can only rule if they keep the law up. They do not want to give congress a justified reason to use their constitutional power to interfere with the courts.

 

Gun owners in New York and everywhere else should ignore state and local gun laws, the second amendment is the only permit they need. In spite of the abuses of the gun control crowd every American has a constitutional right to protect their lives and property. Since the state of New York and every other blue state have done nothing to stop gun crime other than harass lawful gun owners, all of those restrictions are unconstitutional because they don't provide equal protection under the law. These blue state laws like this one in New York are not only punitive to the lawful gun owners but have set precedents regarding a criminal's rights to sue a lawful gun owner that shot them while protecting themselves and their families. How ridiculous is that? Anyone who wants to lawfully own a gun should be subjected to rigorous background checks, have to attend gun safety courses and be tested on paper and on a range. They must understand that they are responsible to be in control of their firearm(s) at all times. That should be the extent of the state's power in this not some open ended apparatus for political purposes. Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to act upon this uneven state by state application of gun laws. There needs to be one simple set of gun laws at the federal level that is the law of the land that cannot be superseded by any state or locale.

 

What is new here?
Legislatures pass laws.
Courts overturn them.
Been that way since inception.
What do you think has channged?

 

There is a special place in hell for Supreme Court justices who feign conservatism (being a strict constructionist) and then get on the court and make rulings that warm the heart of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

 

The court is allowed to rule on anything that is brought up before them and has merit. They are not constrained the way that you think they are. If a government body tries to play the court the court will always smack them down for it.

 

Congress has the power to decide what domestic powers the federal courts have. They can remove all domestic power from the court and make them mute if they want. Basically the supreme court only has power as long as they don't piss of the ruling party.

 

there is a little thing called the constitution,.......

 

Last part of Article 3

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

Your point?

 

Congress controls what cases the court can or can not take.

 

By what method are the regulations created?

 

Laws/legislation

 

Give examples

 

He is technically correct in that Congress does have the authority to determine whether or not they may hear a case via their legislative power. All that they have to do is pass a law stating that SCOTUS cannot hear X case. But that is a very dangerous precedent almost on par with impeachment in seriousness. It is complicated and you'll hear various limits on what either Congress or the Courts can do in regards to it. For instance it is not believed that Congress can direct the "winner" of a case because that is definitely with in the purview of the Courts. This may help you and is fairly recent: LINK: Jurisdiction Stripping: When May Congress Prohibit the Courts from Hearing a Case? And a disclaimer...take what is in that link with a grain of salt, there's always dissenting opinions. But generally speaking everyone agrees that there are instances where Congress can limit the Courts on what they hear. Where that line is though is what is contested.

Ultimately though it is not something that should ever be taking lightly and CERTAINLY not for an agenda gain.