Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on August 13, 2019, 07:26:37 PM
-
we're going to cry and pout and then hold our breath.
“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”
That’s the “friendly” warning message that was sent by five Senate Democrats in a brief filed in the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v City of New York.
Democrat Senators Threaten to ‘Restructure’ Supreme Court if Second Amendment Ruling Goes Against Them
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=post;topic=53171.2850;num_replies=2863
-
we're going to cry and pout and then hold our breath.
Democrat Senators Threaten to ‘Restructure’ Supreme Court if Second Amendment Ruling Goes Against Them
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=post;topic=53171.2850;num_replies=2863
So they'll do what? Up it to 11? Then (hi Harry Reid!) the next Republican President will up it to 13 to cancel out the 11. And on and on. Then in a few decades we'll have an Idiocracy supreme court of 119 Brawndo drinkers. "Can't attend court! 'Baten'! Go away!
-
Basically the argument (if you can call it that) they're trying to make is that gun control is a political issue and that the SC should stay out of politics.
SCOTUS Is Considering Hearing This 2A Case...And Dem Senators Aren't Happy
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/13/gaggle-of-dem-senators-want-scotus-to-throw-out-2a-case-for-idiotic-reasons-n2551633
-
Basically the argument (if you can call it that) they're trying to make is that gun control is a political issue and that the SC should stay out of politics.
SCOTUS Is Considering Hearing This 2A Case...And Dem Senators Aren't Happy
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/13/gaggle-of-dem-senators-want-scotus-to-throw-out-2a-case-for-idiotic-reasons-n2551633
Yeah, that's not at all insane.
-
Basically the argument (if you can call it that) they're trying to make is that gun control is a political issue and that the SC should stay out of politics.
SCOTUS Is Considering Hearing This 2A Case...And Dem Senators Aren't Happy
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/13/gaggle-of-dem-senators-want-scotus-to-throw-out-2a-case-for-idiotic-reasons-n2551633
But wait, there's more!! From the amicus brief:
The rationale for this long-settled principle is simple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). “It can be tempting for judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the requirements of the law,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomes from the bench. But a judge “is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (Yale Univ. Press 1921). Accordingly, justiciability doctrines, such as standing and mootness, have evolved to serve as an “apolitical limitation on judicial power,” confining the courts to their constitutionally prescribed lane. John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993). In short, courts do not undertake political “projects.” Or at least they should not.
Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court. Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gunsafety regulations. Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law, the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation.
Bolding mine.
Yes, that's right. Liberals are using the DISSENTING opinion on the case that decided there is a right to same sex marriage to claim that the Supreme Court shouldn't involve itself in politics.
Just.....let that sink in for a second.
-
But wait, there's more!! From the amicus brief:
Bolding mine.
Yes, that's right. Liberals are using the DISSENTING opinion on the case that decided there is a right to same sex marriage to claim that the Supreme Court shouldn't involve itself in politics.
Just.....let that sink in for a second.
Even more ... they are complaining that the SCOTUS might "expand" the Second Amendment. The second Amendment is perhaps the most expansive of all the rights in the Bill of Rights. "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How the heck can you "expand" on that? What they're really worried about is that their unconstitutional infringements may be called out as unconstitutional infringements.
-
To their side, anything beyond the right to own blunderbusses (licensed, registered, and kept in a government facility) is too expansive.
-
I wonder if this is just because it is in New York? It should be a slam dunk decision and the law should be struck down.
The stupid part is that striking down unconstitutional laws is something courts have been doing for a long time.
-
The stupid part is that striking down unconstitutional laws is something courts have been doing for a long time.
Except when the unconstitutional laws happen to involve guns.
-
The stupid part is that striking down unconstitutional laws is something courts have been doing for a long time.
The court has also completely destroyed the 10th ammendment.