Thomas, Kavanaugh lament 'decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment'

[benjaminh98]

Interesting read on Fox News

Thomas, Kavanaugh lament 'decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment'

[The War Wagon]

Saw that. We better get a PRIMO 2-A judge to replace Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg when she molds away!

[gumby]

If SCOTUS had taken any of the 10 2A cases, we would have lost 5-4 with the political weather vane(Roberts) siding with the leftists. He believes in corporate rights not individual rights. The 2A is an individual right.

[varanidguy]

Originally Posted by gumby

If SCOTUS had taken any of the 10 2A cases, we would have lost 5-4 with the political weather vane(Roberts) siding with the leftists. He believes in corporate rights not individual rights. The 2A is an individual right.

I don't buy it, considering it likely would've taken a year or longer to even complete the process in SCOTUS had they decided to take any of the cases. A lot can happen between saying they'll hear the case and when they finally make a ruling.

[riderr]

The judicial system has become a bitter joke. It takes decades to consider cases, while the civil rights (not just 2A) are being infringed. The existing SCOTUS decisions are getting widely ignored by the lower courts. What's the purpose of such a dysfunctional judicial system?

[Featureless]

Actually, and ultimately, the 2nd Amendment was crafted to protect itself.

[Frito Bandido]

Originally Posted by The War Wagon

Saw that. We better get a PRIMO 2-A judge to replace Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg when she molds away!

I'd be down with a Justice Benitez appointment.

Pro-2A, and against Citizen's United.

Not sure about his position on other matters, but that right there is a good indication that he'd be on the right side of things.

[Featureless]

Originally Posted by Frito Bandido

I'd be down with a Justice Benitez appointment.

Pro-2A, and against Citizen's United.

Not sure about his position on other matters, but that right there is a good indication that he'd be on the right side of things.

Yeah. Corporations are not people. That was a politically motivated anti-liberty stupid decision.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by Frito Bandido

I'd be down with a Justice Benitez appointment.

Pro-2A, and against Citizen's United.

Not sure about his position on other matters, but that right there is a good indication that he'd be on the right side of things.

The man is a senior status judge, we need someone young like Amy Coney Barret or Amal Thapur to put it to these leftists for decades

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by Featureless

Yeah. Corporations are not people. That was a politically motivated anti-liberty stupid decision.

The gate for citizens united is political crap.

The reality is corporations are just groups of people with a shared set of goals. That might be selling products and making money or it might be providing for the homeless. As all reasonably large charities are corporations. The question is should groups of people lose their freedom of speech. Should the congress be allowed to tell the salvation army they aren't allowed to run tv ads or have their red kettle or not be allowed to use "army" in fear it implies us army?

No, groups of people are allowed to have freedom of speech. What the left doesn't like is what some of those groups are saying. Which is exactly why we have the first amendment. It is there to protect speech that is unpopular.

[RIFLERACK31]

Originally Posted by Featureless

Actually, and ultimately, the 2nd Amendment was crafted to protect itself.

Yup, but i dont see it happening.

[Thoughts]

Originally Posted by gumby

If SCOTUS had taken any of the 10 2A cases, we would have lost 5-4 with the political weather vane(Roberts) siding with the leftists. He believes in corporate rights not individual rights. The 2A is an individual right.

I agree that he seems concerned with corporate rights, and doesn't care about human rights. He also seems to worry about popularity a lot. I wouldn't trust him unless my name was Exxon, personally.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Thoughts

I agree that he seems concerned with corporate rights, and doesn't care about human rights. He also seems to worry about popularity a lot. I wouldn't trust him unless my name was Exxon, personally.

I don't know if 'popularity' is the right term. Roberts has always indicated that he is concerned with the public's perception of the Court; particularly as a 'neutral' arbiter. The problem is that virtually nothing he's done in that vein has appeared to create a sense of neutrality or give him the preponderance of 'majority' (6-3 or better) decisions he expressed a desire for vs. a series of 5-4 'partisan' appearing decisions.

Insofar as advancing corporate rights vs. the rights of individuals, you need to be careful with that given that such is a lamentation of the Democrats.

A review of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence during the Roberts Era reveals that in the most controversial and salient civil cases – those decided by bare 5-4 or 5-3 majorities – when the right wing of the Court has voted en bloc to form the majority, they do so to advance far-right and corporate interests a striking 92% of the time. In those cases, the “Roberts Five” – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Justice Antonin Scalia (replaced last year by Justice Neil Gorsuch) – have reliably voted in lockstep to help Republicans win elections, to protect corporations from liability, to take away civil rights, and to advance the far right social agenda.

Aren't those the names of the Justices we're placing our bets on insofar as gun cases? (Substituting Kavanaugh for Kennedy now.)

[Jimi Jah]

Originally Posted by Featureless

Actually, and ultimately, the 2nd Amendment was crafted to protect itself.

Which is all we have left after the Robert's Court. I don't want a gun case anywhere near this crew. They just legalized sanctuary cities and states. Apparently the supremacy clause does not apply to immigration law.

[dogrunner]

Originally Posted by Featureless

Actually, and ultimately, the 2nd Amendment was crafted to protect itself.

Only by virtue of force of arms............Jefferson said it best relative to refreshing the tree of liberty.

[Apocalypsenerd]

I had hoped that the Judiciary was the one branch where some integrity still existed. I think what troubles me most about these last few days is that they put a nail in that coffin.

The 2A cases being denied is terrible. That they would not clean up qualified immunity is worse.

The thing that weighs most heavy on me is that they think it is right and proper that a case can take between 7 and 26 years to be decided. That is atrocious. It is unbelievable that they think a person should wait as much as a third of their lifetime to get a ruling from the courts. That's not justice.

While I generally take a dim view of most lawyers' work ethics, their overall integrity is generally extraordinary. I had hoped to see some of that at SCOTUS.

[USMCM16A2]

Who is going to win the culture war? November we have a verdict. A2

[homelessdude]

It all comes down to the upcoming election. If you don't want to watch whats left of the Bill of Rights disappear VOTE and contribute if you can.

[robertkjjj]

Roberts infuriates me more and more each year.
Such a disappointment.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

Roberts infuriates me more and more each year.
Such a disappointment.

Me too.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Featureless

Yeah. Corporations are not people. That was a politically motivated anti-liberty stupid decision.

I own a corporation. It’s me. The people.

[Frito Bandido]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

I own a corporation. It’s me. The people.

I own one too. Corporations are legal constructs to facilitate contractual agreements, payments and taxation. They are not human beings, they're a legal construct.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

Roberts infuriates me more and more each year.
Such a disappointment.

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Me too.

Amazing how Roberts has become so Unreliable in protecting
something as Important as the 2nd Amendment...

We Need 4 More years of President Trump, so that when RBG finally
decides to "Retire" Trump can select a Pro-2A replacement, giving us
an apparent 6-3 majority, however since Roberts is so questionable,
we might, unfortunately, just be back to 5-4 majority.

And then we have the Raving Lunatics of Gun Control (Democrats)
Threatening to "Restructure" SCOTUS:

Democratic Senators Threaten SCOTUS:
Do As We Say, Or Else...
Townhall. August 14, 2019
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...-else-n2551667

In an effort to bully the Supreme Court, a group of Senate Democrats
are warning that if the conservative justices refuse to "heal" the court
-- in this case, "healing" constitutes declining to take up a specific gun
rights case -- the Court will face a "restructuring." This is nothing less
than a threat against the independent judiciary by hardcore partisans:

In this case, a cabal of leftist Senate Democrats are telling members of
the judicial branch that if they fail to produce the "correct" ideological
outcomes, politicians will intervene to fundamentally alter the high
court's composition.

Unbelievable.


Noble

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Frito Bandido

I own one too. Corporations are legal constructs to facilitate contractual agreements, payments and taxation. They are not human beings, they're a legal construct.

Citizen is a legal construct too. It is not equivalent to a human.
All corporation speech originates in humans. They are just like any other group of humans. A union. PAC. Street riot gang.

[R Dale]

IMO Trump is no friend of the 2nd although I know he can't just issue a executive order and fix everything there is a lot more he could have done to help the cause of the 2nd. One thing Trump should have done is exposed how unfair the anti gun laws are in various states and never agree with the anti gun people on anything. The next thing he should have done is expose SCOTUS on how poorly they have been performing in dealing with states that have a blatant disregard for the constitution.

[Jimi Jah]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

Who is going to win the culture war? November we have a verdict.

Or not. Expect calls of fraud and more protests about a flawed election system. Alzheimer Joe already said that if he loses it will because Trump cheated. If democrats lose they will not except the results.

If any of this is to be settled, it will not be at the ballot box, it will be from the barrel of a gun.

[HibikiR]

If those protests are anything like the recent ones then it'll probably turn more people into gun owners while the Left goes on another riot and looting spree.

[sfvshooter]

Here are some excerpts from an article from the National Review:

If you’re counting along at home, that’s four Justices — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh — in favor of the Court’s reviewing Second Amendment issues. Those four together can grant certiorari in any case they wish. One presumes that the only reason they didn’t do so in one of the ten Second Amendment cases the Court passed on Monday is that they were unsure how Chief Justice Roberts would vote once the cases were heard.

Remember, the four progressive-leaning justices can grant review of a case just as the four conservative-leaning justices can. Given that they didn’t on Monday, they likely don’t believe Chief Justice Roberts is on their “side” of the issue.

The conclusion we’re left with is that Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t want the Court to weigh in on the Second Amendment right now, and neither the four conservative justices nor the four progressive justices were confident enough of his siding with them on the issue to risk granting certiorari in any of the ten cases.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...endment-cases/

[MountainLion]

The National Review article is probably the closest description of the truth I've seen so far. In reality, the court has many factions. Starting on the right there are two hard-core conservatives (Thomas and Alito), who will always vote the way the right wing wants them to, independent of whether they're legally right or wrong. Then there are Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, two Burkean conservatives, who hold common sense and stare decisis in high regard, but are generally more libertarian and traditional. Then there is the swing vote and the politically centrist chief justice Roberts, who mostly worries about the court not losing its reputation as a fair arbiter. Then there are two Burkean conservative liberals, again more interested in common sense than partisanship, namely Kagan and Breyer. And on the opposite end from Thomas and Alito are Ginzburg and Sotomayor, who are just as intellectually crooked as their counterparts on the right, and always capable of creating a legal argument to prove their progressive opinion.

Now present those 9 people with a gun rights case, like carry rights. Four of them have their mind completely made up, and we know going in how they are going to vote. And they are chomping at the bit to take the case and show the world what's right! The problem is that those four are Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Ginzburg, and you can't build a majority this way. The other 5 justices really don't want to deal with crap like this, because it's going to be hard to find a compromise that is acceptable to a 5-justice majority. But even more importantly: in the big picture of all the problems in our society, gun rights is a small fish. Does it really matter how hard it is to get a permit to carry a gun, given that in most of the US most people can do that? Does it really matter whether you can get your Glock in every possible color combination, given that there are plenty guns to choose from? And finally, the Chief Justice knows full well that any gun rights decision the court makes will be massively unpopular, and will piss off about half of the population of the US. He really doesn't want another public relations disaster like Heller, Obergefell or Citizens, because he wants the court to be respected, perhaps even loved, by most Americans, not by roughly half of them.

What would happen if the four justices on the right, or the four justices on the left, want to vote to accept a gun rights case? First thing the two moderates on the other side would say: if you want to take such a hard and obnoxious case, we'll vote against you just to spite you. And Roberts would say: I'll vote against you, just to punish you for making my mission more difficult. And you have to be careful with that Roberts guy; he's an incredibly good lawyer, and he can craft arguments better than anyone else. His particular art is using "conservatism" and precedent to prove any point he wants to prove. A recent article referred to him as the "greatest surgeon in operating on precedent in the last 150 years". Given this dynamic of the court, they'll only take unpopular cases that are in the center of the culture war if it is really important, and this topic just isn't.

By the way, the same exact argument applies to the other big culture war problem: abortion. Both abortion friends and foes are distraught that the court is not taking enough of their cases, for exactly the same reason. In the real world (away from feminist or religious nutcases), abortion really is not a big deal. Just like that, gun rights only matter to a tiny fraction of the population: a few gun nuts (like us here on this forum), and a few gun controllers.

I think a lot of the frustration that's visible here at Calguns is: our hobby has become so unimportant that the courts can't even be bothered to defend it. It is just a pawn in a political battle, not a real issue.

[lowimpactuser]

If anyone thinks Roberts isn't a political actor who's decided because the left is louder and their issues matter more. If anyone here thinks that taking the expansion fo civil rights to trans and civil rights isn't radical culture war issue that was decided overwhelmingly for one side. If you think deciding governor's can void the 1st amendment isn't for reasons to let the left win and no other reason.

Then you have chosen to remain blind to the point of absurdity. And you deserve to continually give copes for when they outlaw your slingshot and enforce mandatory kissing of every LGBTP category for your grandchildren in kindergarten.

[WWDHD?]

Great takes on the delicate balance of SCOTUS here. All I know for sure is I hate W Bush for picking Roberts for the Supreme Court. What a waste of a pick.

[bubbapug1]

The court did take a 2a case recently and it was a big case. Unfortunately New York changed the law to avoid the ramifications of losing in the Supreme Court.

The court hasn’t taken another case because it’s waiting for a case of such magnitude which will cover many areas of the 2a spectrum, not a narrow area like the roster.

Roberts isn’t the traitor some think, he’s playing the game in a way to make as big of an impact as possible.

As to citizen, how is a corporation any less of an entity with rights than a union? If a union can charge dues and spend in campaigns why should a corporation not be able to defend its interests through the political process and campaign contributions?

Think about the public sector unions and Calpers in California. Have not the fireman and police cut extravagant deals through their influence on politics? Calpers is almost one trillion dollars underfunded while fireman make over $300,000 a year and retire on 80% of that. That’s better than most doctors and lawyers. Those costs are paid by us, and some cities can’t afford it.

Citizen leveled the playing field. While corporations and the rich yield tremendous power, perhaps it’s better they do than the people who push defunding police and confiscations of firearms.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by bubbapug1

The court did take a 2a case recently and it was a big case. Unfortunately New York changed the law to avoid the ramifications of losing in the Supreme Court.

The court hasn’t taken another case because it’s waiting for a case of such magnitude which will cover many areas of the 2a spectrum, not a narrow area like the roster.

Roberts isn’t the traitor some think, he’s playing the game in a way to make as big of an impact as possible.

As to citizen, how is a corporation any less of an entity with rights than a union? If a union can charge dues and spend in campaigns why should a corporation not be able to defend its interests through the political process and campaign contributions?

Think about the public sector unions and Calpers in California. Have not the fireman and police cut extravagant deals through their influence on politics? Calpers is almost one trillion dollars underfunded while fireman make over $300,000 a year and retire on 80% of that. That’s better than most doctors and lawyers. Those costs are paid by us, and some cities can’t afford it.

Citizen leveled the playing field. While corporations and the rich yield tremendous power, perhaps it’s better they do than the people who push defunding police and confiscations of firearms.

The court ignored their own rules for defendants attempting to duck review. New York city and state democrats provided a clear cut and open attempt to do one thing and one thing only, duck NYSRPA while giving away practically nothing. I am sick and tired of hearing from people like you that what NY Dems did was legitimate or that Roberts and Kavanaugh did anything except help gun controllers avoid review for at least a few more years.

[BobB35]

Originally Posted by MountainLion

The National Review article is probably the closest description of the truth I've seen so far. In reality, the court has many factions. Starting on the right there are two hard-core conservatives (Thomas and Alito), who will always vote the way the right wing wants them to, independent of whether they're legally right or wrong. Then there are Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, two Burkean conservatives, who hold common sense and stare decisis in high regard, but are generally more libertarian and traditional. Then there is the swing vote and the politically centrist chief justice Roberts, who mostly worries about the court not losing its reputation as a fair arbiter. Then there are two Burkean conservative liberals, again more interested in common sense than partisanship, namely Kagan and Breyer. And on the opposite end from Thomas and Alito are Ginzburg and Sotomayor, who are just as intellectually crooked as their counterparts on the right, and always capable of creating a legal argument to prove their progressive opinion.

Now present those 9 people with a gun rights case, like carry rights. Four of them have their mind completely made up, and we know going in how they are going to vote. And they are chomping at the bit to take the case and show the world what's right! The problem is that those four are Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Ginzburg, and you can't build a majority this way. The other 5 justices really don't want to deal with crap like this, because it's going to be hard to find a compromise that is acceptable to a 5-justice majority. But even more importantly: in the big picture of all the problems in our society, gun rights is a small fish. Does it really matter how hard it is to get a permit to carry a gun, given that in most of the US most people can do that? Does it really matter whether you can get your Glock in every possible color combination, given that there are plenty guns to choose from? And finally, the Chief Justice knows full well that any gun rights decision the court makes will be massively unpopular, and will piss off about half of the population of the US. He really doesn't want another public relations disaster like Heller, Obergefell or Citizens, because he wants the court to be respected, perhaps even loved, by most Americans, not by roughly half of them.

What would happen if the four justices on the right, or the four justices on the left, want to vote to accept a gun rights case? First thing the two moderates on the other side would say: if you want to take such a hard and obnoxious case, we'll vote against you just to spite you. And Roberts would say: I'll vote against you, just to punish you for making my mission more difficult. And you have to be careful with that Roberts guy; he's an incredibly good lawyer, and he can craft arguments better than anyone else. His particular art is using "conservatism" and precedent to prove any point he wants to prove. A recent article referred to him as the "greatest surgeon in operating on precedent in the last 150 years". Given this dynamic of the court, they'll only take unpopular cases that are in the center of the culture war if it is really important, and this topic just isn't.

By the way, the same exact argument applies to the other big culture war problem: abortion. Both abortion friends and foes are distraught that the court is not taking enough of their cases, for exactly the same reason. In the real world (away from feminist or religious nutcases), abortion really is not a big deal. Just like that, gun rights only matter to a tiny fraction of the population: a few gun nuts (like us here on this forum), and a few gun controllers.

I think a lot of the frustration that's visible here at Calguns is: our hobby has become so unimportant that the courts can't even be bothered to defend it. It is just a pawn in a political battle, not a real issue.

I agree with your analysis and conclusions. You forget one thing though, by not taking actions - the court is allowing the lower courts to define things. The lower courts can't refuse to give a ruling like SCOTUS. Therefore by doing nothing (especially after the NY case and 10 denials) the exact thing that Roberts wants to avoid is coming to pass. The courts are losing legitimacy in the eyes of many people. You may not think gun rights are a big issue form most people, but there are people looking at how the court is ignoring the 2A and wondering what other fundamental rights the courts will ignore while focusing on made up rights.

The longer they refuse to decide the worse it will get. The 2A questions is not going away and the pressure is building.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by MountainLion

I think a lot of the frustration that's visible here at Calguns is: our hobby has become so unimportant that the courts can't even be bothered to defend it. It is just a pawn in a political battle, not a real issue.

It is not a hobby.

[bubbapug1]

Here’s how public employee unions work it in California.

https://voiceofoc.org/2020/06/south-...ff-protection/

[johnireland]

Does it really matter anymore what the court does? America is in flames. Stopping this sort of violence is why we give cops guns. It's time for them to start using them and return safety and law and order to the streets. And if they can't or won't, the American people (with or without any rulings from the court) have the responsibility to arm themselves in self defense and take back the streets.

[Jimi Jah]

Originally Posted by riderr

The judicial system has become a bitter joke. It takes decades to consider cases, while the civil rights (not just 2A) are being infringed. The existing SCOTUS decisions are getting widely ignored by the lower courts. What's the purpose of such a dysfunctional judicial system?

To make the masses think they have a legitimate legal system.

[Fedora]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Roberts has always indicated that he is concerned with the public's perception of the Court; particularly as a 'neutral' arbiter.

I'd be happier it the "neutral" Supreme Court were replaced with one heavily biased towards the Constitution.

[robertfchew]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

It all comes down to the upcoming election. If you don't want to watch whats left of the Bill of Rights disappear VOTE and contribute if you can.

I donate small amounts because I don't have tons of money for political campaigns and all they do is start hounding you more.