Tweet
Many 2nd Amendment supporters have been frustrated by the obstructionism of localities like DC and Chicago and even lower courts toward Heller and McDonald. That's what led to this topic: A discussion of how far the Supreme Court can go to impose its will and under what circumstances the Court might take these drastic measures.
1. The most extreme example might be President Eisenhower dispatching federal troops to Arkansas to enforce court orders requiring integration. But I doubt liberals are foolish enough to organize a mob to obstruct court orders.
2. Another interesting example involves the city of Yonkers's obstructionism toward a court-ordered housing desegregation plan. Judge Sand imposed some rather remarkable sanctions:
Emphasis mine.
It didn't last. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia (who played an important role behind the scenes) struck down these rather extreme sanctions. What I find interesting is what the opinion actually said:
Emphasis mine.
In other words, the Court actually left open the possibility that lower courts may go as far as to impose sanctions that threaten to bankrupt a city!
3. The 3rd example involves the Court dragging the 9th Circus into line. It involves the execution of Robert Alton Harris. Liberal judges on the 9th Circus were hell bent on issuing stays to prevent his execution. Finally, the Court got tired of their theatrics and issued a rather remarkable order: "No further stays of Robert Alton Harris' execution shall be entered by the federal courts except upon order of this court."
This order is so remarkable that some (notably liberal) scholars have gone so far as to call it unconstitutional. It is remarkable because it is unprecedented. What it essentially means is that the Court decided all future filings from Harris are a waste of time, that the 9th Circus cannot be trusted to discharge its responsibilities, and that therefore the Court will take away their power to grant stays for that case.
Harris was executed.
Personally, I think it is possible that localities like DC and Chicago might be stubborn enough to trigger sanction #2 and the 9th Circus might be foolish enough to trigger something like sanction #3 where their authority in a case (or perhaps even in a line of cases) is simply stripped from them.
2nd Amendment supporters will probably have to wait a few more years for these arrogant localities and lower courts to hang themselves by developing a pattern of obstructionism akin to massive resistance against racial integration.
When that day comes, I nominate the perhaps inevitable ban on UOC in California as the test case. I think that moderates like Justice Kennedy will be shocked to learn that even unloaded carry is banned. That shock might be combined with sympathy for the gun owners once he reads about how well-behaved they have been.
1. The most extreme example might be President Eisenhower dispatching federal troops to Arkansas to enforce court orders requiring integration. But I doubt liberals are foolish enough to organize a mob to obstruct court orders.
2. Another interesting example involves the city of Yonkers's obstructionism toward a court-ordered housing desegregation plan. Judge Sand imposed some rather remarkable sanctions:
Each Councilman, fined $500 a day and threatened with jail after the 10th day, had paid $3,500 when an appeals panel first suspended the penalties on Aug. 9. The city, facing fines starting at $100 and doubling each day, had paid $12,700 when the suspension took effect. The appeals panel limited the maximum daily fine to $1 million.
It didn't last. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia (who played an important role behind the scenes) struck down these rather extreme sanctions. What I find interesting is what the opinion actually said:
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the court, said U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand acted too hastily in holding the councilmen in contempt.
The judge should have waited to see whether a contempt order against the city that threatened to bankrupt it succeeded in forcing compliance with Sand's desegregation order, Rehnquist said.
The judge should have waited to see whether a contempt order against the city that threatened to bankrupt it succeeded in forcing compliance with Sand's desegregation order, Rehnquist said.
In other words, the Court actually left open the possibility that lower courts may go as far as to impose sanctions that threaten to bankrupt a city!
3. The 3rd example involves the Court dragging the 9th Circus into line. It involves the execution of Robert Alton Harris. Liberal judges on the 9th Circus were hell bent on issuing stays to prevent his execution. Finally, the Court got tired of their theatrics and issued a rather remarkable order: "No further stays of Robert Alton Harris' execution shall be entered by the federal courts except upon order of this court."
This order is so remarkable that some (notably liberal) scholars have gone so far as to call it unconstitutional. It is remarkable because it is unprecedented. What it essentially means is that the Court decided all future filings from Harris are a waste of time, that the 9th Circus cannot be trusted to discharge its responsibilities, and that therefore the Court will take away their power to grant stays for that case.
Harris was executed.
Personally, I think it is possible that localities like DC and Chicago might be stubborn enough to trigger sanction #2 and the 9th Circus might be foolish enough to trigger something like sanction #3 where their authority in a case (or perhaps even in a line of cases) is simply stripped from them.
2nd Amendment supporters will probably have to wait a few more years for these arrogant localities and lower courts to hang themselves by developing a pattern of obstructionism akin to massive resistance against racial integration.
When that day comes, I nominate the perhaps inevitable ban on UOC in California as the test case. I think that moderates like Justice Kennedy will be shocked to learn that even unloaded carry is banned. That shock might be combined with sympathy for the gun owners once he reads about how well-behaved they have been.
Comment