Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1201  
Old 09-22-2019, 7:57 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 588
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I really just fear that we will get an incredibly narrow decision akin to the Colorado Baker case only addressing this one specific instance and not addressing the broader issue.
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 09-22-2019, 9:11 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 643
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher View Post
I didn't say those were the only "choices".

I said those were the only possible outcomes. With the current scotus there's going to be a lot crushed souls on this case.

And that is my opinion. But I'd bet I'm right.
Sure. And all those panicked Bolsheviks are wrong in their reading of this case.

I am glad we have better experts around.
Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 09-22-2019, 9:25 AM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,572
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

How often does the court take on a super narrow, obscure law limited to one jurisdiction (in this case NYC) just to rule on that law alone? There is a reason its the Supreme court. It deals with fairly broad issues applicable to the entire country.

This case is not so much about NY law as it is about the 2CA upholding the NYC law. Its blatantly unconstitutional and 2CA's "logic" looked much like something you'd get from the 9CA; dressing up rational basis as intermediate scrutiny, means-end balancing, etc. All the things that Heller said No to.

Perhaps Jus. Thomas will finally get a chance to provide the guidance that the lower courts need.
Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:36 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,789
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
I really just fear that we will get an incredibly narrow decision akin to the Colorado Baker case only addressing this one specific instance and not addressing the broader issue.
I'm not so sure. The left is scared out of their minds over this case. NYC has changed the laws to moot the case. Democrats in the House are afraid. I think they have seen how pissed off Justice Thomas is on how the Second Amendment is treated it may be a ruling that could torpedo some gun control laws and maybe stop some from ever becoming law.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:38 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,789
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
How often does the court take on a super narrow, obscure law limited to one jurisdiction (in this case NYC) just to rule on that law alone? There is a reason its the Supreme court. It deals with fairly broad issues applicable to the entire country.

This case is not so much about NY law as it is about the 2CA upholding the NYC law. Its blatantly unconstitutional and 2CA's "logic" looked much like something you'd get from the 9CA; dressing up rational basis as intermediate scrutiny, means-end balancing, etc. All the things that Heller said No to.

Perhaps Jus. Thomas will finally get a chance to provide the guidance that the lower courts need.
Or a slap to the face for ignoring Heller and McDonald for so long. Either way someone is gonna get b*tched slapped.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:58 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,826
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
Perhaps Jus. Thomas will finally get a chance to provide the guidance that the lower courts need.
I'm really hoping that Thomas will take this case and write the opinion on it and have that as his grand finale on SCOTUS. He needs to retire immediately after this ruling.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 09-22-2019, 11:04 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 386
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Justice Thomas is one of the best legal minds on the S.Ct.

Why would he retire?

He is the true intellectual and moral leader of the court, not John Roberts.
Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 09-22-2019, 11:31 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
Or a slap to the face for ignoring Heller and McDonald for so long. Either way someone is gonna get b*tched slapped.
One word. Cataeno.


Cataeno was 9 to ZERO per curiam, GVR'd, and sent back down. Along with that 9 to ZERO vote, was a very open letter / companion opinion directed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court about how due process was supposed to work and what the standard is supposed to be in regards to Constitutional Rights.

We now have NY State and NYC playing games and the 3rd Cir messing around and ignoring Cataeno when it comes to due process and scrutiny. And then, just to top it all off, the US House of Rep's openly threatened the 3rd branch of the government in writing.

I don't think even Justice Ginsberg is going to let that pass without some sort of comment. And the recipient of all of that ire and (hopefully) anger, is going to be the lawyers for NY.

Or, at least I HOPE so.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #1209  
Old 09-22-2019, 11:57 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,826
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
Justice Thomas is one of the best legal minds on the S.Ct.

Why would he retire?

He is the true intellectual and moral leader of the court, not John Roberts.
Yes I agree but he is highly likely to leave the court during the term of whoever is after Trump. Trump can appoint a replacement right now. Who knows when we'll have another Republican president? Due to demographic changes in the US it may never happen. Florida is just barely winnable by Republicans right now. It may be impossible to win Florida in 2024. Texas will be a competitive state in in 2024. How much longer can Republicans be a viable party?

He needs to retire after writing the NY opinion and let Trump appoint his replacement as his final service in a lifetime of great service.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 09-22-2019, 12:08 PM
enegue enegue is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 752
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Yes I agree but he is highly likely to leave the court during the term of whoever is after Trump. Trump can appoint a replacement right now. Who knows when we'll have another Republican president? Due to demographic changes in the US it may never happen. Florida is just barely winnable by Republicans right now. It may be impossible to win Florida in 2024. Texas will be a competitive state in in 2024. How much longer can Republicans be a viable party?

He needs to retire after writing the NY opinion and let Trump appoint his replacement as his final service in a lifetime of great service.
GOP would not only need to win the presidency but also hold onto the senate. Love Thomas but we’re trying to play the long game here. I’m sure there are other pro-freedom judges to choose from.
Reply With Quote
  #1211  
Old 09-22-2019, 1:12 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
One word. Cataeno.


Cataeno was 9 to ZERO per curiam, GVR'd, and sent back down. Along with that 9 to ZERO vote, was a very open letter / companion opinion directed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court about how due process was supposed to work and what the standard is supposed to be in regards to Constitutional Rights.

We now have NY State and NYC playing games and the 3rd Cir messing around and ignoring Cataeno when it comes to due process and scrutiny. And then, just to top it all off, the US House of Rep's openly threatened the 3rd branch of the government in writing.

I don't think even Justice Ginsberg is going to let that pass without some sort of comment. And the recipient of all of that ire and (hopefully) anger, is going to be the lawyers for NY.

Or, at least I HOPE so.
^ This...
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 09-22-2019, 5:33 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,696
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
One word. Cataeno.


Cataeno was 9 to ZERO per curiam, GVR'd, and sent back down. Along with that 9 to ZERO vote, was a very open letter / companion opinion directed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court about how due process was supposed to work and what the standard is supposed to be in regards to Constitutional Rights.
Uh ... if the Court really intended the "companion opinion" (i.e. the concurrence) to be representative of the Court's opinion, then it wouldn't have been a concurrence, it would have been the actual opinion.

So no, this doesn't mean anything at all. The 9 to zero per curiam happened because the plaintiff was a pitiable homeless woman whose plight tugged at the heart strings of the liberals on the bench and made them cry. There was no way they were going to let the state throw her in jail, because muh feelz. It has absolutely nothing to do with legal or foundational principles.

Caetano is in no way indicative of how the liberals on the Court are going to find in NYSRPA, because the latter involves firearms whilst the former involves stun guns, and the former involves a situation that appeals to people who base their decisions on feelings while the latter most adamantly does not.


Quote:
We now have NY State and NYC playing games and the 3rd Cir messing around and ignoring Cataeno when it comes to due process and scrutiny. And then, just to top it all off, the US House of Rep's openly threatened the 3rd branch of the government in writing.

I don't think even Justice Ginsberg is going to let that pass without some sort of comment. And the recipient of all of that ire and (hopefully) anger, is going to be the lawyers for NY.

Or, at least I HOPE so.
The liberals on the Court, and in the rest of the court system, are outcome-oriented. When in the world are people finally going to get this? Just how many court cases does it take for that lesson to finally sink in? Ferchrissake, it's been more than a decade that we've put up with the consequences of that and yet some people here still haven't figured this out???

Unbelievable.


Now, all that said, I think the Court is going to do more than issue a super-narrow decision here. This case would be a complete waste of their time otherwise, and the likes of Thomas and Gorsuch would have opposed cert if they had significant reason to believe that the Court was going to be that spineless in its decision here. Which is to say, there's absolutely no reason at all to believe that cert was granted for the purpose of issuing a super-narrow waste-of-breath decision. But a strong decision will happen despite the wishes of the liberals on the bench, not because of it. This will be another 5-4 decision, because the liberals on the bench want firearms gone, and probably want only homeless women to have stun guns -- the rest of us can eat cake.
__________________
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; 09-22-2019 at 6:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 09-22-2019, 8:36 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hugs KC. You got through to me and several others.

But it is tiresome to see people thinking logic matters instead of raw political power. Including the guy above who said the left is scared so it must mean good news.

The left is evil and crazy. Their reactions to things mean nothing, and the fact you make your decisions based in their reactions mean you too are led by the left.

The truly sad thing is, aside from Kcbrown, very few people have an actually POSITIVE view of the future. When you just say “go back to the old constitution” with new demographics and a different economic and social structure than we had hen, it’s just leaping like a tricorner boi circa 2008.
There is no going back, the constitution and the judicial process are definitionally failures because they’ve allowed us to get to this point. Frankly it failed in Liberia very quickly and it seems to finally be failing us now.

Whether that’s because of demographics, debt, empire, or a combination doesn’t matter.

The left routinely decides stare decisis doesn’t matter and overturns law. Witness Brown v. board, Texas v. White, the civil rights act, wickard v. Filburn, Miller, etc etc.

The right says the best we can do is have judges who rule originally no matter who benefits, while the left rules however is best for their side.

Guess who delivers more goodies for their side.

If we refuse to acknowledge how our enemy plays and our side refuses to actually offer us as good a deal as the left is getting, then we deserve to be destroyed for failing to replace our leadership with those who will actually deliver, and a framework to keep those goodies.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 09-22-2019 at 8:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 09-22-2019, 9:00 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,826
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The liberals on the Court, and in the rest of the court system, are outcome-oriented. When in the world are people finally going to get this?
I completely agree. We see the same with immigration cases. The liberals want to see the end of US exercise of sovereignty, regardless of what the law is. They want an outcome.

I wish our side would start going for outcomes, rather than process, because no one is going to ever look at the ruins of Western civilization and think, "yeah, they completely committed suicide but they did it by following all the rules so perfectly."

Why don't we ever consider having "living document conservatives"?
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 09-22-2019, 9:03 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I completely agree. We see the same with immigration cases. The liberals want to see the end of US exercise of sovereignty, regardless of what the law is. They want an outcome.

I wish our side would start going for outcomes, rather than process, because no one is going to ever look at the ruins of Western civilization and think, "yeah, they completely committed suicide but they did it by following all the rules so perfectly."

Why don't we ever consider having "living document conservatives"?
Because that’s not who we are. We’re better than that despite the fact we lose and are being made vassals or serfs in our own lands.

Better to be executed by revolutionaries than to fight in an unsporting manner.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 09-23-2019, 6:32 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Uh ... if the Court really intended the "companion opinion" (i.e. the concurrence) to be representative of the Court's opinion, then it wouldn't have been a concurrence, it would have been the actual opinion.

So no, this doesn't mean anything at all. The 9 to zero per curiam happened because the plaintiff was a pitiable homeless woman whose plight tugged at the heart strings of the liberals on the bench and made them cry. There was no way they were going to let the state throw her in jail, because muh feelz. It has absolutely nothing to do with legal or foundational principles.

Caetano is in no way indicative of how the liberals on the Court are going to find in NYSRPA, because the latter involves firearms whilst the former involves stun guns, and the former involves a situation that appeals to people who base their decisions on feelings while the latter most adamantly does not.




The liberals on the Court, and in the rest of the court system, are outcome-oriented. When in the world are people finally going to get this? Just how many court cases does it take for that lesson to finally sink in? Ferchrissake, it's been more than a decade that we've put up with the consequences of that and yet some people here still haven't figured this out???

Unbelievable.


Now, all that said, I think the Court is going to do more than issue a super-narrow decision here. This case would be a complete waste of their time otherwise, and the likes of Thomas and Gorsuch would have opposed cert if they had significant reason to believe that the Court was going to be that spineless in its decision here. Which is to say, there's absolutely no reason at all to believe that cert was granted for the purpose of issuing a super-narrow waste-of-breath decision. But a strong decision will happen despite the wishes of the liberals on the bench, not because of it. This will be another 5-4 decision, because the liberals on the bench want firearms gone, and probably want only homeless women to have stun guns -- the rest of us can eat cake.
OMG, really?

In one long schpeel you go from "if they'd really meant it" to "they really mean it" and don't even see how contradictory your entire position is.

The concurring opinion in Cataeno IS NOT "the opinion". There is NO "opinion". Thus, the concurrence has no more significance than that "open letter" I mentioned. One which clearly spells out how the SCOTUS feels when lower courts and the States play games with Constitutional Rights.

Cataeno wasn't about a "homeless woman". SCOTUS doesn't care about "homeless women". Cataeno was about abuse of the judiciary process by the judiciary.

Further, I didn't say that it was going to be 9-0 for the decision, I said that if I were the lawyer for NYC I'd be quaking in my boots over the fact that the mootness hearing is still on calendar even after orals are scheduled. Think about that - There is a mootness hearing on calendar and the court scheduled the oral argument anyway.

Now, that could be because the court just scheduled the orals as a matter of calendaring. But it could also mean that the court decided against mootness. IF that's the case, WHY is the mootness hearing still on calendar?

The answer to that question is that no one knows.

But, what we DO KNOW is Cataeno got 9-0 per curiam votes to GVR because Mass played games with justice. We ALSO KNOW that NYC and NY State are doing similar things here. Just like Chicago tried to do after MacDonald.

They. Played. Games. With. Justice.

The SCOTUS and lower Courts B-slapped Chicago (repeatedly) over their legislative games and refusal to obey the SCOTUS decision. The concurring opinion the SCOTUS served up with the GVR in Cataeno seriously B-slapped Mass for judicial refusal to obey the higher court. It might not be "the opinion" but are you going to ignore 5 SCOTUS justices when they tell you to get your act together after all 9 of them overturned your decision in that case without comment?

I'm not. Nor am I going to try and justify my continued disobedience by saying "it was Massachusetts not me".

Then we get NYSR&P and, out of the blue, the Court grants review of the case. A case that "all the right people" don't believe is as "strong" as some of the other "and bear" cases requesting cert. Cases which are held pending NYSR&PA.

And here we are looking at a case about "policy" rather than a straight interpretation of the Constitution. I've mentioned before that SCOTUS decides policy and here's a perfect example of that. This case isn't about the Constitution, it's about how we follow the dictates in the Constitution. That's the job SCOTUS does. It's how we got "exigent circumstances" in the 4A without there being a word about that in the Constitution.

Thus, by accepting the case, SCOTUS certified the question that BOTH Chicago and Mass got B-slapped over. And now they leave on calendar a hearing where NYC and NY State attempted more legislative/judicial games. And the hearing is still on calendar AFTER the court scheduled oral arguments in the case as a potential signal that the case will proceed past the mootness hearing.

No one knows why the hearing is still scheduled. I can tell you that going into a hearing somewhat confident in the court ruling in my favor is nice. Going into a hearing thinking that the court may not rule in my favor means I have to work hard at the hearing to convince them to decide in my favor.

Going into a hearing knowing that the court has calendared additional hearings in my case tells me that they've likely decided against my argument.

But not knowing why they've left the hearing on calendar while also knowing that my client has engaged in severely frowned upon antics isn't something I ever want to have to face the court over. 9 angry justices can put a lot of hurting on stupid lawyers who sign briefs arguing that the State and NYC can do whatever the heck they want and the courts can't stop them.
'
That has nothing to do with "liberal mindset".
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.

Last edited by rplaw; 09-23-2019 at 6:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 09-23-2019, 8:14 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
OMG, really?

In one long schpeel you go from "if they'd really meant it" to "they really mean it" and don't even see how contradictory your entire position is.

The concurring opinion in Cataeno IS NOT "the opinion". There is NO "opinion". Thus, the concurrence has no more significance than that "open letter" I mentioned. One which clearly spells out how the SCOTUS feels when lower courts and the States play games with Constitutional Rights.

Cataeno wasn't about a "homeless woman". SCOTUS doesn't care about "homeless women". Cataeno was about abuse of the judiciary process by the judiciary.

Further, I didn't say that it was going to be 9-0 for the decision, I said that if I were the lawyer for NYC I'd be quaking in my boots over the fact that the mootness hearing is still on calendar even after orals are scheduled. Think about that - There is a mootness hearing on calendar and the court scheduled the oral argument anyway.

Now, that could be because the court just scheduled the orals as a matter of calendaring. But it could also mean that the court decided against mootness. IF that's the case, WHY is the mootness hearing still on calendar?

The answer to that question is that no one knows.

But, what we DO KNOW is Cataeno got 9-0 per curiam votes to GVR because Mass played games with justice. We ALSO KNOW that NYC and NY State are doing similar things here. Just like Chicago tried to do after MacDonald.

They. Played. Games. With. Justice.

The SCOTUS and lower Courts B-slapped Chicago (repeatedly) over their legislative games and refusal to obey the SCOTUS decision. The concurring opinion the SCOTUS served up with the GVR in Cataeno seriously B-slapped Mass for judicial refusal to obey the higher court. It might not be "the opinion" but are you going to ignore 5 SCOTUS justices when they tell you to get your act together after all 9 of them overturned your decision in that case without comment?

I'm not. Nor am I going to try and justify my continued disobedience by saying "it was Massachusetts not me".

Then we get NYSR&P and, out of the blue, the Court grants review of the case. A case that "all the right people" don't believe is as "strong" as some of the other "and bear" cases requesting cert. Cases which are held pending NYSR&PA.

And here we are looking at a case about "policy" rather than a straight interpretation of the Constitution. I've mentioned before that SCOTUS decides policy and here's a perfect example of that. This case isn't about the Constitution, it's about how we follow the dictates in the Constitution. That's the job SCOTUS does. It's how we got "exigent circumstances" in the 4A without there being a word about that in the Constitution.

Thus, by accepting the case, SCOTUS certified the question that BOTH Chicago and Mass got B-slapped over. And now they leave on calendar a hearing where NYC and NY State attempted more legislative/judicial games. And the hearing is still on calendar AFTER the court scheduled oral arguments in the case as a potential signal that the case will proceed past the mootness hearing.

No one knows why the hearing is still scheduled. I can tell you that going into a hearing somewhat confident in the court ruling in my favor is nice. Going into a hearing thinking that the court may not rule in my favor means I have to work hard at the hearing to convince them to decide in my favor.

Going into a hearing knowing that the court has calendared additional hearings in my case tells me that they've likely decided against my argument.

But not knowing why they've left the hearing on calendar while also knowing that my client has engaged in severely frowned upon antics isn't something I ever want to have to face the court over. 9 angry justices can put a lot of hurting on stupid lawyers who sign briefs arguing that the State and NYC can do whatever the heck they want and the courts can't stop them.
'
That has nothing to do with "liberal mindset".
Thank you for cutting through the bull**** like a hot knife through butter.

=8-)

...and I love how Caetano v. Massachusetts keeps popping up.

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 09-23-2019, 6:19 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,696
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm going to rearrange slightly, because part of what you said raises a question that has substantial implications for the rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Thus, the concurrence has no more significance than that "open letter" I mentioned. One which clearly spells out how the SCOTUS feels when lower courts and the States play games with Constitutional Rights.
I was presuming the "open letter" you're referring to was the concurrence. Am I incorrect about that? Because if I am, it means I've missed something important, and would really appreciate a link to the "open letter" you speak of. Much of what I said is based on that presumption, and is obviously invalid if my presumption is incorrect.

What follows incorporates the above presumption (that the concurrence is the "open letter" you speak of), so please bear that in mind in your response.


Quote:
OMG, really?

In one long schpeel you go from "if they'd really meant it" to "they really mean it" and don't even see how contradictory your entire position is.
You presume something here that I don't: that the Court's internal opinion doesn't change over time.

But it does, and that's part of my point (implicit though it may be).

At the time Caetano was issued, the Court did not mean to back the concurrence. It didn't have the votes for that. And that's why the concurrence is just a concurrence and not the actual opinion of the Court.

This means the reasons that Caetano was decided 9-0 are not represented in the concurrence.


Quote:
The concurring opinion in Cataeno IS NOT "the opinion".
No kidding. It's a concurrence. My point is precisely that it's not the opinion and therefore does not represent the view of the Court at that time. This means that no conclusions about the motivations of the Court today can be drawn from the contents of the concurrence, save for the motivations of those who signed onto the concurrence.


Quote:
There is NO "opinion".
Oh yes there is. The per curiam decision states why the Court reversed the decision in front of it. That's no different than any other opinion issued by the Court, save for its brevity.





Quote:
Cataeno wasn't about a "homeless woman".
Oh yes it was.


Quote:
SCOTUS doesn't care about "homeless women".
The liberals on the Court do.

What, do you think the Court is composed of unfeeling robots or something? Of course at least some of the members of the Court care about homeless women and other disadvantaged people. They'd have to have dispensed with their humanity not to!

Do you think it's an accident that it was Caetano, and not any other 2A case, that the Court granted cert to? There's nothing that truly sets that case apart from any other that the Court denied cert to. That there have been several dissents against denial of cert in other cases makes it clear that there is belief on the part of at least some of the justices that there were egregious errors of law in those cases. Caetano is not noteworthy in this respect. And yet it was granted cert anyway, whereas those other cases weren't.

The only differences in Caetano that could make a difference to the liberals on the Court are that a nonlethal weapon was involved, and that the plaintiff was a homeless woman trying to defend herself from an abusive boyfriend.


Quote:
Cataeno was about abuse of the judiciary process by the judiciary.
Many 2A cases share that trait with Caetano. They were denied cert all the same. So no, this isn't why the Court granted cert. Or, more precisely, not the sole reason. A confluence of reasons is, with the abuse you refer to here being one of them that, by itself, isn't sufficient.


Quote:
Further, I didn't say that it was going to be 9-0 for the decision, I said that if I were the lawyer for NYC I'd be quaking in my boots over the fact that the mootness hearing is still on calendar even after orals are scheduled. Think about that - There is a mootness hearing on calendar and the court scheduled the oral argument anyway.
Oh, I don't disagree with this. But the reasons I agree with you are perhaps somewhat different. The reason I agree with you is that the composition of the Court has changed and, thus, its overall position.


Quote:
But, what we DO KNOW is Cataeno got 9-0 per curiam votes to GVR because Mass played games with justice.
No. It got 9-0 per curiam because it combined the distasteful behavior you refer to here with a pitiable plaintiff and a nonlethal weapon.


Quote:
The SCOTUS and lower Courts B-slapped Chicago (repeatedly) over their legislative games and refusal to obey the SCOTUS decision. The concurring opinion the SCOTUS served up with the GVR in Cataeno seriously B-slapped Mass for judicial refusal to obey the higher court. It might not be "the opinion" but are you going to ignore 5 SCOTUS justices when they tell you to get your act together after all 9 of them overturned your decision in that case without comment?
I agree. And like I said, I think we're going to see a 5-4 decision out of this, with the 5 justices being the conservatives on the Court.


Quote:
Then we get NYSR&P and, out of the blue, the Court grants review of the case. A case that "all the right people" don't believe is as "strong" as some of the other "and bear" cases requesting cert. Cases which are held pending NYSR&PA.

And here we are looking at a case about "policy" rather than a straight interpretation of the Constitution. I've mentioned before that SCOTUS decides policy and here's a perfect example of that. This case isn't about the Constitution, it's about how we follow the dictates in the Constitution. That's the job SCOTUS does. It's how we got "exigent circumstances" in the 4A without there being a word about that in the Constitution.

Thus, by accepting the case, SCOTUS certified the question that BOTH Chicago and Mass got B-slapped over. And now they leave on calendar a hearing where NYC and NY State attempted more legislative/judicial games. And the hearing is still on calendar AFTER the court scheduled oral arguments in the case as a potential signal that the case will proceed past the mootness hearing.

No one knows why the hearing is still scheduled. I can tell you that going into a hearing somewhat confident in the court ruling in my favor is nice. Going into a hearing thinking that the court may not rule in my favor means I have to work hard at the hearing to convince them to decide in my favor.

Going into a hearing knowing that the court has calendared additional hearings in my case tells me that they've likely decided against my argument.
Can't dispute any of this.


Quote:
But not knowing why they've left the hearing on calendar while also knowing that my client has engaged in severely frowned upon antics isn't something I ever want to have to face the court over. 9 angry justices can put a lot of hurting on stupid lawyers who sign briefs arguing that the State and NYC can do whatever the heck they want and the courts can't stop them.
'
That has nothing to do with "liberal mindset".
It doesn't have to be 9 angry justices. That's the point. It only has to be 5. And yes, it does have to do with "liberal mindset".

Do you really think it's an accident that McDonald was a 5-4 opinion after Heller found the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual one? Any intellectually honest justice would have sided with the majority in that case. But instead, the 4 liberals on the Court would have broken with decades of Supreme Court tradition regarding incorporation in order to decide that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable against the states. That is precisely what I mean when I say the liberals on the court are outcome oriented.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 09-23-2019, 6:53 PM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 179
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Cert granted 1-22-19

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post

...(Snip)...
Do you really think it's an accident that McDonald was a 5-4 opinion after Heller found the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual one? Any intellectually honest justice would have sided with the majority in that case. But instead, the 4 liberals on the Court would have broken with decades of Supreme Court tradition regarding incorporation in order to decide that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable against the states. That is precisely what I mean when I say the liberals on the court are outcome oriented.

Rock solid evidence that gets to the heart of the matter. The four liberals on the Court will break with the most fundamental logic of the Constitution - in this case the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment - when such logic goes against their ideology.
Reply With Quote
  #1220  
Old 09-23-2019, 6:56 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,696
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I completely agree. We see the same with immigration cases. The liberals want to see the end of US exercise of sovereignty, regardless of what the law is. They want an outcome.

I wish our side would start going for outcomes, rather than process, because no one is going to ever look at the ruins of Western civilization and think, "yeah, they completely committed suicide but they did it by following all the rules so perfectly."

Why don't we ever consider having "living document conservatives"?
Well, let's entertain for a moment the notion of "living document conservatives", as it were, i.e. people on the bench who were willing to twist the meaning of words to whatever degree necessary in order to achieve what they want, and other political actors who took a "no holds barred" approach. What would you get?

You'd get conservative decisions, of course. You'd get laws that directly impose the beliefs of the people in question. You'd get forced religion, at a minimum, the western equivalent of Sharia law.

Why? Because we're talking about people with power and the willingness to go to any lengths to achieve their vision of what society should be. People like that don't believe in liberty (save for the liberties they want for themselves and theirs, and then only to the degree that it doesn't conflict with other things they want) or rights (which are liberties that you are supposed to have even if the majority disagrees). They believe in forcing others to do things "for their own good".

Those are precisely the motivations of the other side. The only difference is what would be imposed.

That's not to say that the resulting society under what amounts to a conservative autocracy would be no better than what the other side would get us. We know from experience that the other side's approach gets you tens of millions of people dead at the hands of government, mass starvation, massive distrust and paranoia of the citizenry by the citizenry, etc. A conservative autocracy is likely to be at least somewhat better than that, because it's hard to do worse than the end result of what the other side has in mind.

But you do not get liberty, preservation of rights, personal responsibility, etc., that way. People who are drawn to power and who are willing to use it to its fullest extent are utterly opposed to such things, because such things impose on their ability to shape reality to fit their vision.


It is precisely because the things we value (or, at least, claim to value) are at odds with the arbitrary exercise of power that we don't do "whatever it takes to win". Someone who is willing to do anything to win and who simultaneously truly holds to the things we value is an inherent contradiction. They would have to adhere to two diametrically opposed belief sets simultaneously, where one of those belief sets includes the use of reason as a means of determining the proper course of action (which means that the person would have to utterly ignore the logic requirement of that belief set in order to simultaneously adhere to the other, precisely because adherence to both is a logical contradiction).


About the best people on our side can do is recognize that there is some minimal set of actions that must be taken, regardless of how distasteful, in order to have any chance of winning in the long run. I believe the main such action to be that of indoctrination of youth on the importance of liberty, of rights, of responsibility (and how you have to have liberty in order to meet one's responsibilities), etc. Impose that indoctrination and the need for the willingness to win no matter the cost may disappear.


To put it more succinctly, you have to sell your soul in order to guarantee a win, and it's precisely because of how you win that you will lose in the end. This isn't a problem for the opposition, because their beliefs are fully compatible with their willingness to do whatever it takes to win.
__________________
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; 09-23-2019 at 7:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1221  
Old 09-23-2019, 8:26 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NYSRPA will be discussed at the conference on Oct 01 and we will most likely find out any results with the orders released on the following Monday morning, Oct 07.
https://www.scotusblog.com/events/2019-10/

Less than ...

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1222  
Old 09-24-2019, 1:01 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Well, let's entertain for a moment the notion of "living document conservatives", as it were, i.e. people on the bench who were willing to twist the meaning of words to whatever degree necessary in order to achieve what they want, and other political actors who took a "no holds barred" approach. What would you get?

You'd get conservative decisions, of course. You'd get laws that directly impose the beliefs of the people in question. You'd get forced religion, at a minimum, the western equivalent of Sharia law.
Just a slight quibble. As pointed out, this theocracy/forced religion would be right wing, but would not be Conservative because that is not a tradition that we have, so it would in fact be a new radicalism that might be characterized as reactionary, something new, etc., but definitely conserves NOTHING.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Why? Because we're talking about people with power and the willingness to go to any lengths to achieve their vision of what society should be. People like that don't believe in liberty (save for the liberties they want for themselves and theirs, and then only to the degree that it doesn't conflict with other things they want) or rights (which are liberties that you are supposed to have even if the majority disagrees). They believe in forcing others to do things "for their own good".

Those are precisely the motivations of the other side. The only difference is what would be imposed.
So this is largely true, but the outcomes are not necessarily written in stone. Frankly, the founding fathers believed Plato was right about democracy and set up the Republic, but thought that even was a dubious proposition that had no track record of success, and various founders like Jefferson thought would need to be rewritten and refought every generation.

And let's be frank. The original founding country was no democracy or even a republic. It was basically as close to an oligarchy as you get in written form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli..._United_States

6% of the population could vote. The senators were chosen by their state governments, which means that appointment and elevation essentially is by... Oligarchy. This form was seen as the best way to secure rights, as they had read their Plato, who further warned them that:

Plato's Republic states Oligarchy devolves into Democracy which devolves into Tyranny. We definitely are in that Democratic stage now, with more % of the population eligible to vote than in first democracy Athens, and voting rights pledged by Sanders and others for Felons, even whilst in Jail. And given the increasing creep of the state, does anyone doubt the next step is far behind?

Definitionally, the early Americas were NOT a democracy where all voted, and did a better job of protecting interests (besides not being unfairly taxed or paid for military service- but we can quibble of Shay and Whisky rebellions elsewhere). Thus, this falsifies the idea that only maximal voting freedom is correlated with maximal liberty. In fact, as the franchise has expanded, the rights of individuals have in fact DEcreased. The civil rights act itself as part of the promise of "truly" protecting voting rights is directly responsible for limiting liberty to achieve higher franchise participation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That's not to say that the resulting society under what amounts to a conservative autocracy would be no better than what the other side would get us. We know from experience that the other side's approach gets you tens of millions of people dead at the hands of government, mass starvation, massive distrust and paranoia of the citizenry by the citizenry, etc. A conservative autocracy is likely to be at least somewhat better than that, because it's hard to do worse than the end result of what the other side has in mind.

But you do not get liberty, preservation of rights, personal responsibility, etc., that way. People who are drawn to power and who are willing to use it to its fullest extent are utterly opposed to such things, because such things impose on their ability to shape reality to fit their vision.
It really does depend though. It's easy to look at hysterical right wing governments run by leftists turned right wing savior like Mussolini, but ignore people like Franco or Pinochet, who while cruel to opponents, showed a much larger degree of hands off depending on the ruler. Liberty is a constantly changing question. Liberty to do WHAT exactly? As many leftist satirists say, if you want your libertarian utopia move to Somalia. You can build your own compound with private militia and no law within the borders. The American states had nearly dictatorial power if they chose, with Maryland banning Catholics and Jews early on, and literally NO constitutional protections against state interference of any kind- only federal interference. The difference, of course, was that you could move relatively easily, there was a frontier if you truly disliked all the states that existed prior to 1861, and the population was more or less homogenous in areas so the expected outcomes of government were reasonable and expected. German Protestants who moved into Pennsylvania were not likely to suddenly ban protestantism, or force wine on all congregations on Sunday. The "liberties" were really what the particular populations cared about locally, and without overweening federal interference and a relatively predictable trajectory, there wasn't as fast or violent of change of priorities in each state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
It is precisely because the things we value (or, at least, claim to value) are at odds with the arbitrary exercise of power that we don't do "whatever it takes to win". Someone who is willing to do anything to win and who simultaneously truly holds to the things we value is an inherent contradiction. They would have to adhere to two diametrically opposed belief sets simultaneously, where one of those belief sets includes the use of reason as a means of determining the proper course of action (which means that the person would have to utterly ignore the logic requirement of that belief set in order to simultaneously adhere to the other, precisely because adherence to both is a logical contradiction).
Again though: what liberties are the ones that matter? Free speech- to what degree? No obscenity laws/no pornography laws? What about courts enforcing contracts- what is contractually allowed and what isn't? Do we relitigate the Dagenhart stuff about making child labor legal again? What about Christian Grey/Fifty shades contracts? "liberty" is a lovely word that is contextual. The spartan's cry for liberty was the liberty to enslave conquered people as Helots and to slaughter them whenever the whimsy arose. Liberty for late 18th century colonists was to have the right to self-determination without a distant power butting in. Liberty in the early 18th century was to not have their ships boarded, cargo inspected, and slaves to be freed and slavers forced to work on British ships. Liberty for mid 19th-century Americans meant fighting to free people they read about in overwrought novels or broadsheets, or paying Irish just off the boat to go slaughter people they never met to save people they never met to destroy an economic system they never dealt with and then forget the whole mess and obligations to those in the conquered area for the next several decades. Liberty for Americans in the mid-20th century meant the pill, burning bras, casual sex, and working outside the home.

Liberty isn't as definable as Hayek or Jefferson or Hoppe imagine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
About the best people on our side can do is recognize that there is some minimal set of actions that must be taken, regardless of how distasteful, in order to have any chance of winning in the long run. I believe the main such action to be that of indoctrination of youth on the importance of liberty, of rights, of responsibility (and how you have to have liberty in order to meet one's responsibilities), etc. Impose that indoctrination and the need for the willingness to win no matter the cost may disappear.


To put it more succinctly, you have to sell your soul in order to guarantee a win, and it's precisely because of how you win that you will lose in the end. This isn't a problem for the opposition, because their beliefs are fully compatible with their willingness to do whatever it takes to win.
The issue is, the people we have on our side have changed. The America that went to war in 1775 are a different sort than we have today. Germans rebelled against the notions of English-delineated families in States, and the Irish were seen as incorrigibly corrupt, running their democracy as a mockery of the process we had here. Indoctrination works- if people actually believe they are getting what they want. Frankly, the Colonies promised lower taxes, more local control, and an ability for backwater failed oligarchs to come into their own as an aristocracy to give us the Revolutionary war. The civil war was fought on the basis of creating a more coherent market strategy for northern industry and the sentiments; ironically moving away from Jefferson's version of Yeoman farmers and moving us into cities and industrialization.

What we term liberty really is the right to live how we want to live. There were very few states that didn't have blasphemy laws, and if you said Jesus Christ was a liar, son of a roman soldier and a whore, and he was boiling in excrement in hell- there's not a colony/state at the time of the revolution, well through the civil war, that wouldn't levy official state penalty on you. Witness the troubles Joe Smith had with his slight modifications to Christianity.

Even now, as we cheer on Incorporation, all we do is cheer on the Tyranny and growing of the autocratic federal judiciary and federal power. The leviathan is here, and the one bright spot we have is to feed it our enemies and attempt to ride it for our benefit. Otherwise the leviathan is our enemy and we shall be fed to it by our enemies. We have lost, at this point, control over whether localities get to choose. States rights is a lie that conservatives have told themselves since John C. Calhoun, and has been proved wrong at the barrel of a gun repeatedly. Those who fail to understand liberty is the liberty to live how you like- including the freedom to do things you disapprove of personally (within your own defined limits of what is allowed- the constitution itself bans sedition and treason which doesn't sound very liberty-spirited to me) fail to understand themselves, and as Sun Tsu warns, you have already lost before the battle began.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 09-24-2019 at 1:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1223  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:16 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,696
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Just a slight quibble. As pointed out, this theocracy/forced religion would be right wing, but would not be Conservative because that is not a tradition that we have, so it would in fact be a new radicalism that might be characterized as reactionary, something new, etc., but definitely conserves NOTHING.
Well, fair enough, but unfortunately, the traditional term "conservative" has been coopted just as the traditional term "liberal" has.


Quote:
So this is largely true, but the outcomes are not necessarily written in stone.
I believe they're written in stone more than you think. You raise a number of examples that basically prove my point. The founders of the country created a system that makes arbitrary use of power possible precisely because that's what they needed in order to get the effects they wanted. They wanted both liberty (more or less as you defined it) and control at the same time, and those are logically contradictory of each other. Similarly, the systems that the example dictators you cite (Pinochet, Franco) made arbitrary exercise of power possible.

Let me put this out for you to consider:
  • To be willing to do anything to win, one must throw out all the rules and be willing and able to exercise arbitrary power
  • For one to be able to exercise arbitrary power so as to guarantee a win as much as such can be guaranteed, the system one operates under must make such exercise relatively easy, and thus has to be imposed if it's not already present
  • Therefore, anyone who will do anything to win must set up, or make use of, a system that makes arbitrary exercise of power relatively easy
  • And thus, it follows that if one values liberty as you defined it ("the right to live how we want to live"), one cannot simultaneously be willing to do anything to win, precisely because such willingness demands a system that is a contradiction of that very value.

Now, it may be true that it's impossible to set up a system that doesn't allow arbitrary exercise of power. Sufficient cooperation on the part of people within the system makes pretty much anything possible. But one needn't make it impossible to exercise arbitrary power, only sufficiently difficult that such exercise ends up being rare enough to not matter. The system the founders set up isn't such a system, precisely because of their requirements for control.


So none of what you said does anything to negate my point, which is that our side is as restrained as it is precisely because of the beliefs we adhere to. It would be convenient indeed if our beliefs allowed for a "do anything to win" approach, but the fact of the matter is that such people will always get you a loss in the end, precisely because the system they would have to set up must be fundamentally incompatible with the belief that people should be able to live their lives however they choose (with the usual "your right to swing your fist ends at my face" limitation).


So where does that leave us? Well, history is unambiguous on that front: it leaves us with an essential guarantee that we will always live under a system that allows for exercise of arbitrary power, and that the only variable is the beliefs of the people who operate it. Which means the best possible outcome is one where the system is operated by people who adhere to a belief system that merely approximates the belief in liberty. That's as good as it's going to get, and it simply cannot last. Malevolent people who believe their way is the only way and who are willing to do anything to win are naturally drawn towards such systems and thus eventually tend to operate it. And they vastly outnumber the people who are willing to do anything it takes to win and who are more or less inclined to let people live how they like, in part because the latter type of person is something of a contradiction in the first place, whereas the former most certainly isn't.


The more I think about the issue, the more I'm convinced that the only possible relief is going to be had through indoctrination of youth in the fundamental principles and values that we hold to. That requires taking over the education system, much the way the opposition has. We'll have to wrest it from them, somehow. That alone might require civil war for all I know.
__________________
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; 09-24-2019 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1224  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:24 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I believe they're written in stone more than you think. You raise a number of examples that basically prove my point. The founders of the country created a system that makes arbitrary use of power possible precisely because that's what they needed in order to get the effects they wanted. They wanted both liberty (more or less as you defined it) and control at the same time, and those are logically contradictory of each other. Similarly, the systems that the example dictators you cite (Pinochet, Franco) made arbitrary exercise of power possible.
One of the important things to remember about Pinochet and Franco is they were reactions against centralized command and communist/socialist opposition, so the equal and opposite political REaction was far stronger than might have otherwise occurred. Remember, British demands on the colonies were relatively light, and mostly amounted to new taxes to pay for the French-Indian war and some ability to pass laws or hold true scofflaws to account back in England. The colonial REaction in fact was nearly equally weighted.

Basic point: Especially in a divided country that has a civil war, definitionally one side HAS to be repressed AFTER victory, or else the opposing side has to be genocided or ethnically cleansed completely. There simply is no other way to have "liberty" or living the way you want to live in a place that has people who oppose the way you want to live still living and attempting to subvert your chosen living arrangements. Faulting authoritarian or autocratic leaders for this simple reality is short-sighted and wrong, to say the least. Remember, the loyalists were subject to terror campaigns and destruction of property that forced a large number to Canada to make the win permanent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Let me put this out for you to consider:
  • To be willing to do anything to win, one must throw out all the rules and be willing and able to exercise arbitrary power
  • For one to be able to exercise arbitrary power so as to guarantee a win as much as such can be guaranteed, the system one operates under must make such exercise relatively easy, and thus has to be imposed if it's not already present
  • Therefore, anyone who will do anything to win must set up, or make use of, a system that makes arbitrary exercise of power relatively easy
  • And thus, it follows that if one values liberty as you defined it ("the right to live how we want to live"), one cannot simultaneously be willing to do anything to win, precisely because such willingness demands a system that is a contradiction of that very value.

[...]

So none of what you said does anything to negate my point, which is that our side is as restrained as it is precisely because of the beliefs we adhere to. It would be convenient indeed if our beliefs allowed for a "do anything to win" approach, but the fact of the matter is that such people will always get you a loss in the end, precisely because the system they would have to set up must be fundamentally incompatible with the belief that people should be able to live their lives however they choose (with the usual "your right to swing your fist ends at my face" limitation).


So where does that leave us? Well, history is unambiguous on that front: it leaves us with an essential guarantee that we will always live under a system that allows for exercise of arbitrary power, and that the only variable is the beliefs of the people who operate it. Which means the best possible outcome is one where the system is operated by people who adhere to a belief system that merely approximates the belief in liberty. That's as good as it's going to get, and it simply cannot last. Malevolent people who believe their way is the only way and who are willing to do anything to win are naturally drawn towards such systems and thus eventually tend to operate it. And they vastly outnumber the people who are willing to do anything it takes to win and who are more or less inclined to let people live how they like, in part because the latter type of person is something of a contradiction in the first place, whereas the former most certainly isn't.


The more I think about the issue, the more I'm convinced that the only possible relief is going to be had through indoctrination of youth in the fundamental principles and values that we hold to. That requires taking over the education system, much the way the opposition has. We'll have to wrest it from them, somehow. That alone might require civil war for all I know.
Well, the biggest problem that the right, or liberty-seekers, or whatever you call them, is they want to live in a world of being left alone, with enemies of their ideas and such sewn integrally amongst their society. The south attempted to make a break based on Geography, but even then there was much problem- for the winning side on the North- of copperheads that sufficed to destroy civil liberties for the entire country. Essentially, the south leaving would open a new military front along the southern border in a time of rapacious conquering European colonialism that made a weaker 2 state solution unacceptable and arguably militarily untenable. Further, the economic system and ideology that a free South would have created would have made the Northern economic system unsustainable. A free South had to be destroyed for reasons outside the South.

If you have an opposition, whether because of Climate change, or abolitionism, or some missionary zeal that means people cannot be left to do evil no matter how remote- then the world is not one that allows for liberty for all, and the only liberty that can be granted is that which allows you to breathe freely because your boot is on the neck of the other, instead of their boot on your neck. The Ecotopia books try to construct a way for the PNW to secede from the union. Secession, whether in mind or in politics, has a record of failure and no successs.

The American Colonies only were free because the British let them free, and aside from a reprisal in 1812, was mostly content to let that happen. Britain cared that America made sense on the balance sheet, and when things got to costly, left. Same thing happened in Indian independence. The USSR had a remarkably different reaction to Hungary, and even Afghanistan; and Russia too with the even more bloody attempted secession of Dagestan. If you face an opponent that doesn't care about the money, doesn't care about the values, but the principle of you being free from control is their least acceptable option- then you have to meet the reality where it is.

Perhaps the American colonies project was a product of it's time, a product of the colonists who settled there, and a product of the singular power and political sensibilities of the empire they left. If your enemies will not cease fighting you, will not leave you alone, then you either bow to their will and become their oxen, yoked to their idea- or you are willing to not just fight, but actively suppress or exile (and what does exile look like in today's internet-connected world?) them effectively enough they are removed from affecting you. I don't have hopes for effective exile today.

Taleb is largely correct about why conservatism is a losing strategy without frontier:

https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/into...mall-minority/
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 09-24-2019 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1225  
Old 09-27-2019, 6:50 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

4 days until the conference!

I just hope this won't be one of those cases where it goes to conference after conference before deciding whether to grant cert (and orals in early Dec) or not. But it very well may given the question of mootness. We'll probably have to wait another week, until Dec 08, before we know what they decided, if anything.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-27-2019 at 9:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1226  
Old 09-28-2019, 6:41 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,504
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
4 days until the conference!

I just hope this won't be one of those cases where it goes to conference after conference before deciding whether to grant cert (and orals in early Dec) or not. But it very well may given the question of mootness. We'll probably have to wait another week, until Dec 08, before we know what they decided, if anything.
I believe the mootness question will be decided quickly and with a short order from the court. Obviously I could be wrong but oral arguments have been scheduled and dragging out the mootness issue just really throws things off.
Reply With Quote
  #1227  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:14 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I believe the mootness question will be decided quickly and with a short order from the court. Obviously I could be wrong but oral arguments have been scheduled and dragging out the mootness issue just really throws things off.
RBG May or may not be dying.

I expect it to be dragged out because guns are evil and possibly waiting to see if she gets nullified soon.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1228  
Old 09-29-2019, 1:03 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For the wonks among us....

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-kavanaugh-nra

https://www.ideastream.org/news/what...-supreme-court

The antis' fear is palpable....

Less than 2 days to go!

We most likely will find out the result on Oct 08, but maybe before...
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-29-2019 at 1:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1229  
Old 09-29-2019, 1:38 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,760
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

^^^ Take those articles concept of the arguement for mootness and apply to Miller case (they were both dead). Was there even an atty present to make an argument in their favor?
Reply With Quote
  #1230  
Old 10-01-2019, 2:31 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 729
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Conference time today....
Reply With Quote
  #1231  
Old 10-01-2019, 8:40 AM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,085
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Come on SCOTUS lets do the damn thannnngggg.
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #1232  
Old 10-01-2019, 9:02 AM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 969
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Come on!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1233  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:02 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Mootness hearing today...


__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #1234  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:56 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,670
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When will we know some outcome?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1235  
Old 10-01-2019, 11:00 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 643
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
When will we know some outcome?
Next week?
Reply With Quote
  #1236  
Old 10-01-2019, 11:28 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I think we will know by tomorrow when they release their orders
Reply With Quote
  #1237  
Old 10-01-2019, 11:39 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
When will we know some outcome?
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #1238  
Old 10-01-2019, 11:42 AM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,085
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Im getting Strict Scrutiny vibes along with defining "Bearing" to mean outside the home vibes.

....I can wish
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #1239  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:28 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
When will we know some outcome?
Good question. If it is deemed moot and denied cert, we could hear anytime: monitor the news and the case's docket page (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html just leave it open in a tab/window and refresh whenever you like, but try not to turn into one of those lab rats in a psychology experiment...). At latest, it will be listed as denied when they release their next orders (https://www.scotusblog.com/events/) next Monday, the 7th, ~6:30am our time. Go to SCOTUSblog to monitor their livestream review of the orders.

If it is not deemed moot, then what? It was already granted, so they won't say it is granted again in either orders or on the docket. Heck, it's already scheduled for orals on Dec 2nd, so there's really nothing for them to say except maybe something like suggestion of mootness denied.

Regardless, we should know whatever they decide sometime before 7:00 am (PST) next Monday.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-04-2019 at 6:46 AM.. Reason: changed from "motion for mootness" to "suggestion of mootness"
Reply With Quote
  #1240  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:31 PM
Thordo's Avatar
Thordo Thordo is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Diamond Springs CA
Posts: 3,882
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Good question. If it is deemed moot and denied cert, we could hear anytime: monitor the news and the case's docket page (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html just leave it open in a tab/window and refresh whenever you like. At latest, it will be listed as denied when they release their next orders (https://www.scotusblog.com/events/) next Monday, the 7th, ~6:30am our time. Go to SCOTUSblog to monitor their livestream review of the orders.

If it is not deemed moot, then what? It was already granted, so they won't say it is granted again in either orders or on the docket. Heck, it's already scheduled for orals on Dec 2nd, so there's really nothing for them to say except maybe something like motion for mootness denied.

Regardless, we should know whatever they decide sometime before 7:00 am (PST) next Monday.
+1
If it's found moot EVERY lefty news organization will scream it from the rafters. If it's not you'll hear crickets from the left and will only hear about it on Fox News and HERE!!

Thordo
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:43 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.