View Single Post
  #7  
Old 02-25-2011, 9:20 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The Nordyke panel is the same panel that incorporated the second amendment in a timely fashion.
Unless I misremember, they "incorporated" the Second Amendment and decided against the plaintiffs anyway.


Quote:
There is no decision left for them to make that would be anywhere near as controversial as the decision they made last time. Why would they delay a less controversial decision for political reasons? Expect movement soon.
Controversy has nothing to do with it. Denial of justice does. They know their decision can be appealed, and that an appeal is likely to be decided in favor of the plaintiffs with the Supreme Court's current composition. A decision that hasn't been rendered is a decision that can't be appealed, and the state of affairs remains unchanged until they render their decision. Furthermore, delaying the decision makes it possible for the balance within the Supreme Court to change enough to cause an appeal at that time to fail.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-25-2011 at 9:25 AM..
Reply With Quote