The decision took a long time because seven justices wrote. An 8-1 ruling in favor of a gun restriction, but strong disagreements about the future — and the past.
Sotomayor/Kagan: Okay, Chief. Shouldn't have made it in the first place, tbh
Gorsuch: Muses of Originalism, inspire me
Kavanaugh: Blah blah blah
Barrett: I'm okay with role playing originalism. If we do, we need to stick with the originals. Clarence tossed in some slipshod "history and tradition" stuff. Not my thing.
Jackson: Okay. It's wrong, but it's the law now. Fine. I concur. But, you know, to be real, it's a mess. We did it. Kinda shouldn't be blaming the victims.
Thomas: I meant what I said before, guys.
Alito (MIA for the last two days): I like the result here. It's a mess, really. But, not going to ruin it. So, I'm staying out of this, guys.
Lots of repeated "history" from the Republicans with an apparent move toward the middle by Barrett. Jackson had it right. Bad test, bad history, and Thomas makes it plain that he only likes his own history, not anything that might change his Wild West today approach.
Especially in context that ‘wild west’ towns typically had very strict firearms ordinances to prevent crime and encourage folk to settle / trade / etc there. Gunslingers being able to amble about armed is a fable created by Hollywood, not moored in the historical precedent that Thomas likes to falsely claim for himself.
A bit of the irony is that this ruling, by not overturning Bruen, basically says that if someone commits domestic violence then it's fine to ban them from having guns, but if that violence isn't domestic... well you can't ban them from having guns. It's a bit of a glaring contradiction to me. Basically Roberts just doesn't want to say he clearly got it wrong in Bruen (maybe he shouldn't let Thomas write opinions on guns idk)
The "Chief", in his opinion, mentioned "common sense" as a guiding principle, where violent wife-beaters sanctioned by a court really, really shouldn't be allowed to possess a gun, coz - inter alia - it's just "common sense".
Well, one wonders, why was "common sense" MIA in the *Cargill* decision? I mean, a semi-automatic rifle modified to shoot up to 800 rounds/min. WITH EFFECTIVELY A SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER surely qualifies as a machine gun, no? It's "common sense", right? Apparently not, as Clarence Thomas' animation of a modified firing mechanism was all that was needed for the other five "originalists" to OK such weapons of mass destruction.
I’m still stunned by Thomas’s dissent which includes discussions of historical surety laws. This discussion at the end is baffling: “This case is not about whether States can disarm people
who threaten others. States have a ready mechanism for disarming anyone who uses a firearm to threaten physical violence: criminal prosecution.” But in footnote 7 he writes that the language in Heller stating felons could be banned from owning a fireman was dicta. WTF?
Gorsuch steps up to bat, takes a swing at glorifying originalism… and he misses the ball entirely, somehow managing to hit himself in the head with his bat.
“Faithful adherence to the Constitution’s original meaning may be an imperfect guide, but I can think of no more perfect one for us to follow.”
I get that he’s trying to make a humble refrain to the great ideals to which he thinks the court should aspire, but this is just godawful writing.
I like the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson (ie one of the Framers Federalist Society originalists claim to worship) on the subject:
“I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR FREQUENT CHANGES IN LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS.
BUT LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS MUST GO HAND IN HAND WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND. AS THAT BECOMES MORE DEVELOPED, MORE ENLIGHTENED, AS NEW DISCOVERIES ARE MADE, NEW TRUTHS DISCOVERED AND MANNERS AND OPINIONS CHANGE, WITH THE CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, INSTITUTIONS MUST ADVANCE ALSO TO KEEP PACE WITH THE TIMES. WE MIGHT AS WELL REQUIRE A MAN TO WEAR STILL THE COAT WHICH FITTED HIM WHEN A BOY AS CIVILIZED SOCIETY TO REMAIN EVER UNDER THE REGIMEN OF THEIR
BARBAROUS ANCESTORS.”
I dunno, but Jefferson sounds like a living Constitutionalist to me (the quote is even inscribed on Thomas Jefferson Memorial in DC).
Roberts: I'll clean up the mess.
Sotomayor/Kagan: Okay, Chief. Shouldn't have made it in the first place, tbh
Gorsuch: Muses of Originalism, inspire me
Kavanaugh: Blah blah blah
Barrett: I'm okay with role playing originalism. If we do, we need to stick with the originals. Clarence tossed in some slipshod "history and tradition" stuff. Not my thing.
Jackson: Okay. It's wrong, but it's the law now. Fine. I concur. But, you know, to be real, it's a mess. We did it. Kinda shouldn't be blaming the victims.
Thomas: I meant what I said before, guys.
Alito (MIA for the last two days): I like the result here. It's a mess, really. But, not going to ruin it. So, I'm staying out of this, guys.
Lots of repeated "history" from the Republicans with an apparent move toward the middle by Barrett. Jackson had it right. Bad test, bad history, and Thomas makes it plain that he only likes his own history, not anything that might change his Wild West today approach.
Especially in context that ‘wild west’ towns typically had very strict firearms ordinances to prevent crime and encourage folk to settle / trade / etc there. Gunslingers being able to amble about armed is a fable created by Hollywood, not moored in the historical precedent that Thomas likes to falsely claim for himself.
That dude is a wholly paid-for clown. Rest in Hell, Thomas ... when you get there, fool. I know he can't see this, but man he burns my bacon.
A bit of the irony is that this ruling, by not overturning Bruen, basically says that if someone commits domestic violence then it's fine to ban them from having guns, but if that violence isn't domestic... well you can't ban them from having guns. It's a bit of a glaring contradiction to me. Basically Roberts just doesn't want to say he clearly got it wrong in Bruen (maybe he shouldn't let Thomas write opinions on guns idk)
The "Chief", in his opinion, mentioned "common sense" as a guiding principle, where violent wife-beaters sanctioned by a court really, really shouldn't be allowed to possess a gun, coz - inter alia - it's just "common sense".
Well, one wonders, why was "common sense" MIA in the *Cargill* decision? I mean, a semi-automatic rifle modified to shoot up to 800 rounds/min. WITH EFFECTIVELY A SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER surely qualifies as a machine gun, no? It's "common sense", right? Apparently not, as Clarence Thomas' animation of a modified firing mechanism was all that was needed for the other five "originalists" to OK such weapons of mass destruction.
"Common sense"...yeah, right.
I’m still stunned by Thomas’s dissent which includes discussions of historical surety laws. This discussion at the end is baffling: “This case is not about whether States can disarm people
who threaten others. States have a ready mechanism for disarming anyone who uses a firearm to threaten physical violence: criminal prosecution.” But in footnote 7 he writes that the language in Heller stating felons could be banned from owning a fireman was dicta. WTF?
I'm confused by all of it. Can our SCOTUS be any more hypocritical than this? I shouldn't say that, or they will. SMFH
If they were truly "originalists" wouldn't killing your wife be okay? Property doesn't have rights. Wait. That's what the tRump robes want. . .
One subtext may be that the Trump 3 (or at least Brett & Amy) are trying to show that they’re not automatons.
Thomas served up the perfect encapsulation of textualism with his dissent. You really can’t make this shit up.
“A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless…”
Gorsuch steps up to bat, takes a swing at glorifying originalism… and he misses the ball entirely, somehow managing to hit himself in the head with his bat.
“Faithful adherence to the Constitution’s original meaning may be an imperfect guide, but I can think of no more perfect one for us to follow.”
I get that he’s trying to make a humble refrain to the great ideals to which he thinks the court should aspire, but this is just godawful writing.
Okay, I just got a visual of that and am sitting here LMFAO. Dumbshit. Hahahahaha
I like the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson (ie one of the Framers Federalist Society originalists claim to worship) on the subject:
“I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR FREQUENT CHANGES IN LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS.
BUT LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS MUST GO HAND IN HAND WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND. AS THAT BECOMES MORE DEVELOPED, MORE ENLIGHTENED, AS NEW DISCOVERIES ARE MADE, NEW TRUTHS DISCOVERED AND MANNERS AND OPINIONS CHANGE, WITH THE CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, INSTITUTIONS MUST ADVANCE ALSO TO KEEP PACE WITH THE TIMES. WE MIGHT AS WELL REQUIRE A MAN TO WEAR STILL THE COAT WHICH FITTED HIM WHEN A BOY AS CIVILIZED SOCIETY TO REMAIN EVER UNDER THE REGIMEN OF THEIR
BARBAROUS ANCESTORS.”
I dunno, but Jefferson sounds like a living Constitutionalist to me (the quote is even inscribed on Thomas Jefferson Memorial in DC).
The USA is a crude and barbaric place and those that are referred to here, as "Conservatives", want to keep it that way.
One can only hope that such "analogical reasoning" will soon apply in the qualified immunity context, and be the first step in killing it.
And felons who have ZERO gun crimes or use in previous crimes?
‘We the People’ are soooo lame. Getting exactly the government we deserve!
Do we know where Alito is/wasa? Or did he just ghost?