Supreme Court Fails To Hear Cases

I posted this in another thread.

History repeating itself.
Justice Souter nominated by G H W Bush ended being one of the most liberal justices.
Justice Roberts (Obamacare penalty is a tax) nominated by G W Bush turning out to be as liberal as the come.

The Bushes strike again.
 
We have four justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) that would have granted certiorari based on prior dissents in these types of petitions, their past voting records, and prior statements.

There is an established circuit split on the right to bear arms in public. Feature-based AWB/mag cap limit challenges under the Second Amendment are more specious based on the state of current rulings. But, the carry cases were certainly ripe for SCOTUS review.

There are lots of scholars, including the folks at SCOTUSblog (whom make their living parsing opinions, dissents, and voting records), who are theorizing that the four solid judicial conservatives scuttled the petitions—because they expected John Roberts, the current swing vote, to either side with the four progressive justices or otherwise refuse to establish a standard of scrutiny protecting Second Amendment rights.

The replacement of RBG with a judicial conservative (either a textualist like Gorsuch or an originalist like Thomas) is vital.
 
Alito, Thomas Are rumored to be looking to retire. If we don’t have a conservative majority in Congress we could be in serious trouble in the next four years.
 
If we don’t have a conservative majority in Congress we could be in serious trouble in the next four years.
I would honestly be surprised if in four years if the current empire that calls itself the US still exists, or in anything more than just name only, and it doesn't go the way of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Things like these 2A court cases are an example of why. Seriously, folks, aren't you tired to allowing these libruls dictate what you can and can't do just because there was a supposed vote somewhere? Instead of playing the game of voting and hoping the sorry, spineless Repugs don't screw you once again, it's time to consider that the best way to win the game may be to not play.
 
I would honestly be surprised if in four years if the current empire that calls itself the US still exists, or in anything more than just name only, and it doesn't go the way of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Things like these 2A court cases are an example of why. Seriously, folks, aren't you tired to allowing these libruls dictate what you can and can't do just because there was a supposed vote somewhere? Instead of playing the game of voting and hoping the sorry, spineless Repugs don't screw you once again, it's time to consider that the best way to win the game may be to not play.

The alternative to whatever you are alluding to is state legislation/constitutional protections for the right to bear arms.

NC’s constitution does not protect public concealed carry by its text. It is considered a privilege under state law. In the absence of federal recognition of the right to self-defense in public, North Carolina provides no explicit protections for its citizens.

Vermont, in the other hand, has explicit constitutional protections for concealed carry (notwithstanding their recent bouts of progressivism and mag capacity limits). That means that, even if SCOTUS interpreted the federal Second Amendment to not protect the public bearing of arms, that ruling could not upset the recognition of the right in Vermont, as it remains recognized and protected under that constitution.

States are free to impose higher protections for rights and persons than the federal government.
 
Back
Top Bottom