8 Comments
User's avatar
Brian MacKay's avatar

This court has egregiously ruled against precedent in several major cases - often in ways I completely disagree with.

But Bruen (and particularly Bruen + Rahimi) takes the cake in terms of absolutely stupid decisions. Suddenly judges are expected to do the work of American History grad students and, as noted in this excellent writeup, without the benefit of either Congress's words or (assumed) intents - a strange leg to stand on for the originalist/textualist wing of the court.

In the words of the late justice Scalia (words that everyone assume pointed at justice Thomas) "I'm an originalist, but I'm not a nut"

Jacobs-Meadway Roberta's avatar

Bruen compounds bad “history” with bad theory and it would be better to simply bury it as wrongly decided as well as unworkable.

mfmatusky's avatar

Sounds to me like a law created specifically for arbitrary and capricious enforcement.

Robin Dumler's avatar

Excellent and informative. Thanks for sharing the news we all need to know !

Diane Cooley's avatar

More making it up as they go along to justify whatever they want to justify. Exactly as described by Sotamayor

Sam Ray's avatar

How many law firms that 😱 surrendered to trump like Paul Weiss, had CEOs in the epstein 📁s?

GeorgeC's avatar

Thank you for a clear explanation of a steaming pile of legal excrement.