Assault Weapons Ban Upheld In MA

[QuackerSmacker]

4 hours ago, mikegideon said:

I don't know how any of the liberal judges could retire in good conscience as long as Trump is around with a senate majority. They will hang on for dear life, I figure.

I'm having a little trouble imagining the concept of a liberal judge  --  with a good conscience..........

[mikegideon]

5 hours ago, QuackerSmacker said:

I'm having a little trouble imagining the concept of a liberal judge  --  with a good conscience..........

Good point.

[E4 No More]

On 4/6/2018 at 7:20 PM, MacGyver said:

She's 85, so it's certainly a possibility.  But, she's had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer and is still going strong - so she's about as tough as they come.

Heller and McDonald would be hard to undue - especially the longer they are on the books.  But, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is open to reasonable restrictions.  I hate to poke the hornet's nest when it doesn't need poking.

I disagree. There is a LOT of angst and turmoil in this country over several decades because the SC is NOT doing their job which is to ensure the constitutionality of the laws. It is NOT to decide a fraction of the issue one decade followed by a fraction another decade, followed by yet another fraction a decade later, etc. It is also NOT their job to play politics which is the sum of the state that we are in today.

[MacGyver]

An interesting feature of the Roberts Court is how often he drives to unanimous consensus.  Last term, the court was unanimous in well over half of its decisions.  It was only 5-4 or 6-3 in 14% of its cases.  

That is pretty damning to the ideological view through which many of us view the court. Yes, many hot button issues are divided along rough party lines - but far fewer than you might think.  

The Court’s job kind of is to decide issues fractionally in a lot of cases. They don’t write law - they only decide whether what has been written by the Legislative branch and what/how a law is being implemented by the Executive branch is Constitutional.  This, they respond as legislatures do (or don’t do) their job.  

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written and spoken at length about this - actually regarding the Roe vs. Wade case.  Despite  the fact that she’s a liberal vote on the court - she’s gone on record saying that she thinks it was a faulty decision - and that legislators would’ve taken it up gradually instead.  It’s not to say that she didn’t support abortion rights - rather she thought the decision was “to sweeping.”

So, to the thought of wanting the court to issue these giant black and white decisions is out of sync with the modern Court that very much prefers gradual, measured guidance to legislatures.  

More here for the interested:

http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

 

[E4 No More]

30 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

An interesting feature of the Roberts Court is how often he drives to unanimous consensus.  Last term, the court was unanimous in well over half of its decisions.  It was only 5-4 or 6-3 in 14% of its cases.  

That is pretty damning to the ideological view through which many of us view the court. Yes, many hot button issues are divided along rough party lines - but far fewer than you might think.  

The Court’s job kind of is to decide issues fractionally in a lot of cases. They don’t write law - they only decide whether what has been written by the Legislative branch and what/how a law is being implemented by the Executive branch is Constitutional.  This, they respond as legislatures do (or don’t do) their job.  

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written and spoken at length about this - actually regarding the Roe vs. Wade case.  Despite  the fact that she’s a liberal vote on the court - she’s gone on record saying that she thinks it was a faulty decision - and that legislators would’ve taken it up gradually instead.  It’s not to say that she didn’t support abortion rights - rather she thought the decision was “to sweeping.”

So, to the thought of wanting the court to issue these giant black and white decisions is out of sync with the modern Court that very much prefers gradual, measured guidance to legislatures.  

More here for the interested:

http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

 

I'm not debating what the "modern Court" does. They clearly do NOT do as they were originally intended to do. That's the whole problem. Their job is to judge constitutionality, and if they did that even 50 years ago we wouldn't be having this crap today, nor having to pay to fight for our rights. Settle what the 2A means now and it settles a lot of the uncivil discourse in our country that's occurring. 

[mikegideon]

1 minute ago, SWJewellTN said:

I'm not debating what the "modern Court" does. They clearly do NOT do as they were originally intended to do. That's the whole problem. Their job is to judge constitutionality, and if they did that even 50 years ago we wouldn't be having this crap today, nor having to pay to fight for our rights. Settle what the 2A means now and it settles a lot of the uncivil discourse in our country that's occurring. 

My discourse is civil. I always suggest that they bring bandaids when the come for my guns. That shows that I care deeply for their wellbeing.

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

I'm not debating what the "modern Court" does. They clearly do NOT do as they were originally intended to do. That's the whole problem. Their job is to judge constitutionality, and if they did that even 50 years ago we wouldn't be having this crap today, nor having to pay to fight for our rights. Settle what the 2A means now and it settles a lot of the uncivil discourse in our country that's occurring. 

Unfortunately they’ve got to have the cases to take up before they can render an opinion.  That really didn’t start happening until the Black Panthers started toting around weapons in the ‘60s causing a lot of state legislatures to freak out accordingly.

While you can count the cases before Heller regarding the Second Amendment or mentioning the Second Amendment on two hands - some of the decisions are interesting in what they say.  For example, while the Dred Scott decision regarded the descendants of slaves inferior when it came to standing with the Court, it did imply in its decision that all free men could "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

You get a couple of post Civil War cases regarding the rights of former slaves.  Interestingly Presser vs. Illinois in 1886 restricts the right to assemble as a militia while respecting the individual right to bear arms.  You get a post-NFA case in 1939. But there's just not a lot before Heller.

Here is a decent listing of the cases and summaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

 

 

[tntnixon]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

Unfortunately they’ve got to have the cases to take up before they can render an opinion.  That really didn’t start happening until the Black Panthers started toting around weapons in the ‘60s causing a lot of state legislatures to freak out accordingly.

While you can count the cases before Heller regarding the Second Amendment or mentioning the Second Amendment on two hand - some of the decisions are interesting in what they say.  For example, while the Dred Scott decision regarded the descendants of slaves inferior when it came to standing with the Court, it did imply in its decision that all free men could "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

You get a couple of post Civil War cases regarding the rights of former slaves.  Interestingly Presser vs. Illinois in 1886 restricts the right to assemble as a militia while respecting the individual right to bear arms.  You get a post-NFA case in 1939. But there's just not a lot before Heller.

Here is a decent listing of the cases and summaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

 

 

The other thing is that the SCOTUS doesn’t generally grant cert. until there are two conflicting rulings from two different courts of appeal that could cause the same law to treat citizens differently in different parts of the country . The supremes will generally allow law to be interpreted badly as long as it’s interpreted badly for everyone. 

[E4 No More]

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Unfortunately they’ve got to have the cases to take up before they can render an opinion.  That really didn’t start happening until the Black Panthers started toting around weapons in the ‘60s causing a lot of state legislatures to freak out accordingly.

While you can count the cases before Heller regarding the Second Amendment or mentioning the Second Amendment on two hands - some of the decisions are interesting in what they say.  For example, while the Dred Scott decision regarded the descendants of slaves inferior when it came to standing with the Court, it did imply in its decision that all free men could "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

You get a couple of post Civil War cases regarding the rights of former slaves.  Interestingly Presser vs. Illinois in 1886 restricts the right to assemble as a militia while respecting the individual right to bear arms.  You get a post-NFA case in 1939. But there's just not a lot before Heller.

Here is a decent listing of the cases and summaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

 

 

And how many 2A cases did they NOT pick up? To my recollection they are numerous. Funny how they can jump right in on a case when it suits the government, but not the people. How fast did the gay cake marriage case make it there? An issue representing <3% of Americans is addressed quickly versus the feet dragging of an issue that affects all Americans.

Edited April 9, 2018 by SWJewellTN

[MacGyver]

I guess there’s always a decent portion of the population that is upset in any given decision. We gun owners aren’t the only ones I suppose.  

We've gotten some decent decisions in our favor over the last few years.  At the same time the Court has signaled in multiple cases that they see reasonable restrictions  are not in conflict with the individual right to bear arms. 

While I’d certainly prefer them (and the rest of the government) to stay off my porch, that’s clearly not going to happen.  

We’ve got a majority in our favor (in theory) right now.  I know there’s some thought that they may take up Peruta vs. California.  They didn’t take up a couple - one out of Florida and one out of Texas this year.