What Will SCOTUS Do

[Newtonian 453]

Would you people really quit this shit with Obamacare? It pisses me off to  no end that people fail to see that Obamacare is constitutional. A ton of bad laws are constitutional, just because you don't like it, it doesn't change the facts. The Constitution is far from perfect anyway. Go read any of the serious law sites about it, they all agree the decision was correct, regardless how bad the law was.  It is not the job nor the authority of SCOTUS to protect you from bad laws, only from illegal ones. 

If you read the news after the case was decided, you'd know that Roberts was playing politics the whole way. He did not want a 5-4 decision, and stated so. He was basically brow-beaten by the court's liberal wing and the administration. His reasoning, that the law violated the commerce clause but not taxing authority, was generally regarded as disingenuous. Even the liberal press was surprised that Roberts found an excuse -- taxation -- that the US Government's attorney had not proposed. Had they gone even deeper into the law, there were issues regarding contracts (e.g. health insurance policies) that the law nullified. 

 

Under similar logic you should have no gripe at all with NJ-style gun policy going nation-wide. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about being outdoors. You can "keep" and "bear" to your heart's delight anywhere on your property or domicile. Any gun law can thereby be considered reasonable regulation.

 

Again, I'm astounded at how narrowly so many posters view liberty. Eliminating, in one fell swoop, the health insurance industry, the private contracts between insurers and customers, while forcing individuals to purchase a product, is not merely "bad law." 

[Vlad G 345]

Tell you what, you go revive a thread about that and tell us how angry you are about it, and let leave this one to gun stuff.

[ryan_j 0]

It is not that simple. If they let the wording of the 3ed Circuit court stand, they basically tell the world that Scotus is no longer important to the world. That decision is bad for them. 

 

I'm not saying that politics and court vote trading don't exist or that they will take the case, I just think it would be suicidal for them to not take the case. The 5 people who voted to say Heller is a thing and the McDonald applies to the states would have to sit back and say "ok but not really" which I find unlikely. 

 

 

I think that is a good assessment. They would be saying that Heller and McDonald are not serious, binding decisions, and that the 2A is dead letter. 

 

However, I don't think it is "a few" justices. I think it is just one. I am confident they have the four votes for a grant, but they are unsure of the five votes for a majority decision.

 

There is the possibility of a 6th justice joining the majority. Sotomayor and Stevens seem to be definitely anti. RBG not so much. But Kagan is a wildcard. She has been going hunting with Scalia, and even shot her first deer. 

[quikz 34]

"Yep. Leave it to NJ to F everything up!"

 

 

- America

[Newtonian 453]

There is the possibility of a 6th justice joining the majority. Sotomayor and Stevens seem to be definitely anti. RBG not so much. But Kagan is a wildcard. She has been going hunting with Scalia, and even shot her first deer. 

I hope you're right, but I think you underestimate anti-gun (or at least anti-2A sentiment) sentiments. I just saw a photo the other day of the son of the sfaceme himself carrying a shotgun. 

 

"I support the second amendment," they all scream and yell.

 

Bet you $10 that the majority opinion upholding NJ Law (assuming the case is even heard) will include some mention of respecting the nonexistent "hunting clause" of the 2nd Amendment, or that "several of us are in fact owners of firearms." 

 

Heller had nothing to do with CC. However, is it possible to rule on Drake by re-affirming McDonald? If that's what you're saying, then maybe you're right.

 

But even in that unlikely case, you can bet "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" will not go gently into that good night. They will put up every conceivable barrier you can think of. They can probably stretch the procedural hurdles until 2017. Then they'll pass a five year waiting period, require 300 hours of training, charge a $599 fee, good for 12 months, magazine restrictions that essentially outlaw every gun ever invented. Each barrier will be fought in court, of course, and take many months. 

[raz-0 1,259]

If the next conf. day is Friday 4/25 we hold our breath until the Monday after 4/28 when they announce what was determined... Correct?

 

That is correct, by 4-28 we should know if it has been re-listed again, denied, will be heard, or it the decision was reversed.

 

As far as I cna tell from reading up, the current possible scenarios are as follows:

 

1) They had enough to grant cert and hear the case from the RKBA side of the house, and the anti side of the house asked for re-list to buy time to shop for votes.

2) They had enough to grant cert and hear the case from the anti side of the house and the RKBA side asked to re-list to buy time to shop for votes.(this scenario would likely be to slap the juris prudence around while maintaining the conclusion that the state has such regulatory authority). 

3)  Either or both of the RKBA and anti ringleaders don't have sure votes, but don't want to drop the case for multiple reasons.

4) There are not enough votes to hear, it will be denied, but the RKBA side wants to write a thorough dissent and hasn't had time due to the docket. 

5) They have a lot of cases, and this case will be getting pushed due to number of cases on the docket that are less of a hot topic, and they want to clear the decks for the backlash of whatever they decide. 

6) Summary reversal is in the works. 

 

 

Basically IMO the only thing that has changed is the odds of a summary reversal went up. A re-list could be a stop gap measure that only postpones the inevitable against a slam-dunk for either side even if it was 8-1. 

 

1,2 and 6 could all be done deals signed and ready to go, but are being delayed to affect timing for mid-term elections. 

 

3 is full of options as to how you get there. 

 

IMO, I don't think what is going on is a denial to hear. The reasoning of the 3rd court basically says you can decide anything you want with disregard to facts, history, or precedent in anything as long as you can drum up some sort of argument that one level of scrutiny is another level of scrutiny despite adhering to the dissenting opinion rather than the majority ruling. This may seem great for activist judges, but it cuts that way too. Want to play make believe and ignore the law and precedent? Unless it is unanimous with no dissent, we'll just ignore it using this tactic. Several pieces have been written that appear to be lining up to promote doing just that, so the can of worms should be no secret to SCOTUS. 

 

Relist can go on for a while, Ryan vs. hurles has been relisted for 7 months straight so far.  

[wooly bugger 1]

I hope you're right, but I think you underestimate anti-gun (or at least anti-2A sentiment) sentiments. I just saw a photo the other day of the son of the sfaceme himself carrying a shotgun. 

 

"I support the second amendment," they all scream and yell.

 

Bet you $10 that the majority opinion upholding NJ Law (assuming the case is even heard) will include some mention of respecting the nonexistent "hunting clause" of the 2nd Amendment, or that "several of us are in fact owners of firearms." 

 

Heller had nothing to do with CC. However, is it possible to rule on Drake by re-affirming McDonald? If that's what you're saying, then maybe you're right.

 

But even in that unlikely case, you can bet "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" will not go gently into that good night. They will put up every conceivable barrier you can think of. They can probably stretch the procedural hurdles until 2017. Then they'll pass a five year waiting period, require 300 hours of training, charge a $599 fee, good for 12 months, magazine restrictions that essentially outlaw every gun ever invented. Each barrier will be fought in court, of course, and take many months. 

Newtonian, you are a serious downer.

 

One of the good things that could come of this case, even if it rules against us, is that the rules of scrutiny could be clarified, which would put some limitations on the capricious barriers that legislators could place.

[ryan_j 0]

I hope you're right, but I think you underestimate anti-gun (or at least anti-2A sentiment) sentiments. I just saw a photo the other day of the son of the sfaceme himself carrying a shotgun. 

 

"I support the second amendment," they all scream and yell.

 

Bet you $10 that the majority opinion upholding NJ Law (assuming the case is even heard) will include some mention of respecting the nonexistent "hunting clause" of the 2nd Amendment, or that "several of us are in fact owners of firearms." 

 

Heller had nothing to do with CC. However, is it possible to rule on Drake by re-affirming McDonald? If that's what you're saying, then maybe you're right.

 

But even in that unlikely case, you can bet "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" will not go gently into that good night. They will put up every conceivable barrier you can think of. They can probably stretch the procedural hurdles until 2017. Then they'll pass a five year waiting period, require 300 hours of training, charge a $599 fee, good for 12 months, magazine restrictions that essentially outlaw every gun ever invented. Each barrier will be fought in court, of course, and take many months. 

 

 

That could very well happen,  but I think an opinion issued by the Court is sufficient cover for them to just shrug their shoulders and say, "we tried to keep guns off the street, but the guys in the black robes overruled us"

[Newtonian 453]

Newtonian, you are a serious downer.

 

One of the good things that could come of this case, even if it rules against us, is that the rules of scrutiny could be clarified, which would put some limitations on the capricious barriers that legislators could place.

I'm a scientist by training. I believe in facts, experience, probabilities, and above all demographics.

 

I've got little faith in a system that has failed us on so many occasions (dare I mention Obamacare, and Kelo vs. New London, or is the Central Scrutinizer, Vlad the Impaler, reading this and should I thereby be afeared?). I also hold a very broad appreciation for constitutional rights. As I've written several times, it's more than fukcing guns. Much more.

 

I have even less faith in where a country that will create 20 million new democrat voters within a few years, which whoever wins in 2016, is inevitable. Not to mention millions on millions of stupid, indoctrinated semi-literates graduating from college.

 

I repeat: The gains in favor of gun rights since 1987 were largely a result of legislative action. The court victories have been few and far between. Popular support for the gun culture is vastly, vastly over-estimated in these forums and elsewhere. The courts, as society in general, are moving inexorably leftward. 

 

Yet every post I make for change that's predicated on voting meets silence. You can stand on your chairs and yell and scream and call names all you want, you can post and send Loretta Weinberg all the fukcen emails you like. Go ahead, declare that you will "not comply." (I'd love to see the turds falling out of your pants when they come for you, which eventually, they will).

 

But if you and your family members don't vote you might as well shit nickels with Geronimo's likeness on them, the good it will do. 

 

The younger members of these boards will, by the time they are my age, see the reverse of the famous .gif file that shows states' adoption of shall-issue concealed carry. We're at the apex now, guys. Unless you get off your asses and stop listening to the various experts, and start a grassroots electoral effort, this is as good as it gets.

 

EVEN if all our prayers are answered in this particular case, it's not over. Not by a long shot. 

[Vlad G 345]

If you insist, then please go quote me chapter and verse of what parts of the Constitution were violated by the ACA and Kelo.   I'll wait. In the meanwhile I'll go pull links from all the legal blogs and publications, including right wing ones, proving that you are wrong. 

 

My opinion of you just dropped a bit because of the name calling, but really that's irrelevant, I'll entertained your theories for a bit, I'm bored.

[njpilot 671]

If you insist, then please go quote me chapter and verse of what parts of the Constitution were violated by the ACA and Kelo.   I'll wait. In the meanwhile I'll go pull links from all the legal blogs and publications, including right wing ones, proving that you are wrong. 

 

My opinion of you just dropped a bit because of the name calling, but really that's irrelevant, I'll entertained your theories for a bit, I'm bored.

Only my view, but when it comes to a question like this, I ask, if John Madison and George Mason and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, among others, were here and asked if these acts were permitted under the limits the Constitution places on the Federal gov't, what would they say.

 

I think they would all say NO!!!!!

[Newtonian 453]

If you insist, then please go quote me chapter and verse of what parts of the Constitution were violated by the ACA and Kelo.   I'll wait. In the meanwhile I'll go pull links from all the legal blogs and publications, including right wing ones, proving that you are wrong. 

 

My opinion of you just dropped a bit because of the name calling, but really that's irrelevant, I'll entertained your theories for a bit, I'm bored.

1. The constitution provides for government to take property under fifth amendment, but says quite clearly:  "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." For centuries this was generally taken to mean to build roads, bridges, in some cases municipal buildings and the like. New London condemned that property for PRIVATE use. Citizens did NOT receive just compensation. It was as clear as day. Why do you think the case went to the Supreme Court?? 

 

2. This one's on you. Please show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to take over the healthcare industry -- or any other industry. Where does it give the Feds the power to void contracts entered freely and lawfully, and to force citizens to purchase a product under penalty of law. "If you laahk yo' plan, yoooo can keep yo' plan. Badda boom." I could respect an honest disagreement: "yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it will turn out ok so the end justifies the means." But we're learning that even that particular fantasy is just that.

 

3. I was making a joke, unlike you who scolded me for using Kelo and the AFA to illustrate a point.

 

I repeat. The appreciation for all our rights in this forum is sadly lacking. 

[Vlad G 345]

For sure they did not INTEND this to happen, but as I said the Constitution is not perfect. I'm pretty sure they also didn't think income taxes, standing armies, etc would have happened. That doesn't change that the document they wrote was incomplete or did not cover every thing governments think of. They also assumed you'd have a revolution every now and then.

 

 

The constitution provides for government to take property under fifth amendment, but says quite clearly:  "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." For centuries this was generally taken to mean to build roads, bridges, in some cases municipal buildings and the like. New London condemned that property for PRIVATE use. Citizens did NOT receive just compensation. It was as clear as day. Why do you think the case went to the Supreme Court??

 

Compensation was offered. See above for the source of the problem. Public use was not defined. It a perfectly rational argument that developing an area for higher tax income is a public good. Plus there is a long history of things like private power lines, train systems, etc being acceptable uses of eminent domain. If it is ok to do it for one private system, why not another?

 

 

2. This one's on you. Please show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to take over the healthcare industry -- or any other industry. Where does it give the Feds the power to void contracts entered freely and lawfully, and to force citizens to purchase a product under penalty of law. "If you laahk yo' plan, yoooo can keep yo' plan. Badda boom." I could respect an honest disagreement: "yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it will turn out ok so the end justifies the means." But we're learning that even that particular fantasy is just that.

 

First off, horse poop. You said it was unconstitutional so the burden is on you, but whatever. 1) "promote the general Welfare", 2) Industries have been taken over lots of time (Railroads in the 70's, savings and loans [cough.. Regan], TSA [cough Bush], etc), 3) Interstate commerce 4) a rather long history of the power interfere into contracts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause

 

I've never said it wasn't a bad law, implemented via subterfuge, against the will of the people, and shrouded in lies and misinformation. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[Vlad G 345]

As for voting .. you should read this: http://www.princeton.edu/%7Emgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[mikelets456 78]

If you insist, then please go quote me chapter and verse of what parts of the Constitution were violated by the ACA and Kelo. I'll wait. In the meanwhile I'll go pull links from all the legal blogs and publications, including right wing ones, proving that you are wrong.

 

My opinion of you just dropped a bit because of the name calling, but really that's irrelevant, I'll entertained your theories for a bit, I'm bored.

Category One: Implementation Contrary to Statutory Text

 

Unilateral grant of a one-year delay on all Obamacare health insurance requirements.

Unilateral delay of the employer mandate.

Unilateral delay of out-pocket caps.

Allowing congressional staff to continue on government-subsidized health care.

Category Two : Pending Court Challenges

 

Violates the Origination Clause because it’s a revenue-raising bill that originated in the Senate.

Contraception/abortifacient mandate violates religious liberties.

Expansion of employer mandate’s penalty through IRS regulation.

 

http://www.cato.org/blog/obamacares-top-10-constitutional-violations

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/

[Vlad G 345]

The delays are far more debatable and I agree probably unconstitutional, but that was not the questions brought before SCOTUS. I suggest impeachment, but no one will go down that path again anytime soon because the US public still has a bad taste of it over an idiotic attempt by the republicans to impeach Clinton over a blowjob. 

[mikelets456 78]

Now you tell me why there's over 4000 gun laws when the 2a clearly states "shall not be infringed". Please, do explain. While your at it, how about explaining the constitutionality of NSA spying or car and home searches without warrants, drone attacks on USA citizens, etc.

 

Your delusional and ignorant remarks regarding obamacare are unwarranted and show where you stand on freedom.

[Vlad G 345]

Because there are 4000 laws about "free speech" and every other damn thing on the planet. Nor did I state their were constitutional. I also did not state that NSA, drones or anything else were the issue?

 

Do you yourself a favor and stay on the topic you don't want to look silly, and again, calling me names doesn't change the laws.  You might want to try reading what I wrote before you snap a gasket and accuse me of supporting idiotic laws.

 

I seems it is beyond your comprehension that the US Constitution is not perfect and your only answer is to call me names. I don't feel particularly insulted by people who result to name calling when they can't make a valid point, so try again. 

[WP22 1,558]

I suggest impeachment, but no one will go down that path again anytime soon because the US public still has a bad taste of it over an idiotic attempt by the republicans to impeach Clinton over a blowjob. 

And this tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the constitutional issues you speak of.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

This thread should not be sent to the 1st Amendment Lounge.

But I fear that is just what will happen if we can't stay on topic here and avoid personal attacks!

We are all chomping at the bit waiting for SCOTUS and naturally the anxiety level is high.

In the mean time, can we all just get along???

[Vlad G 345]

And this tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the constitutional issues you speak of.

 

Do tell ... Are you planning to tell me that it was really about perjury and obstruction of justice?  Be serious, a lot of people looked at it and said "crap, I'd lie about that too" so they looked at the charges as being bullshit. Clinton's numbers in polls went up not down during that process.

 

So tell me again which constitutional issue am I not understanding, chapter and verse please?

[67gtonut 847]

This thread should not be sent to the 1st Amendment Lounge.

But I fear that is just what will happen if we can't stay on topic here and avoid personal attacks!

We are all chomping at the bit waiting for SCOTUS and naturally the anxiety level is high.

In the mean time, can we all just get along???

 

yep..... very close to turning into personal attacks......

 

Will give it a little more to calm down ......  or I will move it

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Troy,

 

       I appeal to the admins not to move this thread!  There is a lot of useful info and opinion here.

This may be the the most important decision regarding 2A rights in the PRNJ in our lifetime!!!

[ryan_j 0]

I repeat: The gains in favor of gun rights since 1987 were largely a result of legislative action. The court victories have been few and far between. Popular support for the gun culture is vastly, vastly over-estimated in these forums and elsewhere. The courts, as society in general, are moving inexorably leftward. 

 

I agree with that in general, but understand what the court battles are about - they are not about what the majority has gotten. As you've said, that has been addressed through legislation. Rather, there are some gaps that are left where legislation has failed to follow the Constitution.

 

And addressing those gaps are what the lawsuits are about.

 

Think about it - most of the country is shall-issue. It is only a minority of states that are not, and those don't have a legislative climate to enact it by law. So we must challenge bad law on the books. 

 

Yet every post I make for change that's predicated on voting meets silence. You can stand on your chairs and yell and scream and call names all you want, you can post and send Loretta Weinberg all the fukcen emails you like. Go ahead, declare that you will "not comply." (I'd love to see the turds falling out of your pants when they come for you, which eventually, they will).

 

But if you and your family members don't vote you might as well shit nickels with Geronimo's likeness on them, the good it will do.

 

I vote, as does my wife. The rest of my family doesn't. My mom maybe but I try not to encourage her (she likes Hillary and Obama). I have also helped out candidates that follow my beliefs. 

 

I agree we should vote to get what we want, but that doesn't preclude other avenues.

 

EVEN if all our prayers are answered in this particular case, it's not over. Not by a long shot.

 

Of course it isn't. But it's a good start. 

[WP22 1,558]

Do tell ... Are you planning to tell me that it was really about perjury and obstruction of justice?  Be serious, a lot of people looked at it and said "crap, I'd lie about that too" so they looked at the charges as being bullshit. Clinton's numbers in polls went up not down during that process.

 

So tell me again which constitutional issue am I not understanding, chapter and verse please?

Yeah, President Clinton got his law license suspended over a blowjob. He was,  further, found in contempt of court by Justice Weber Wright for lying under oath on the Paula Jones case. He was also fined 90,000.00 for the same offense.

There were, absolutely, grounds for impeachment.

 

Happy to help you and have a nice day.

[Vlad G 345]

None of that changes the fact that the public viewed that entire affair as witch hunt, again look the polls at the time. Impeachment had 30% support, and the whole thing backfired and I challenge you to show me willingness on the part of anyone to impeach the current administration over a far more serious issue, which the current abuse of the ACA is. It was a dumb move to try to impeach Clinton and it has made congress very shy of impeaching anyone.

 

The lesson there is shove politics aside, and focus on actual problems. The whole Clinton affair was because the "moral majority" wing of the republican party thought there were enough people offended by Clinton's sex life. The reality was the opposite. Most people don't really have THAT much of an issue with sex, were offended by the whole process and didn't feel particular willing to support the whole process when Clinton actually broke the law by lying about his sex life.

 

The moral of the story is that if you use the power of Congress to follow political causes, you exhaust its authority to actually enforce serious issue. Show me one person actually willing to follow impeachment chargers today for the far more serious issues at stake?

[JohnnyB 4,325]

 

I agree with that in general, but understand what the court battles are about - they are not about what the majority has gotten. As you've said, that has been addressed through legislation. Rather, there are some gaps that are left where legislation has failed to follow the Constitution.

 

And addressing those gaps are what the lawsuits are about.

 

Think about it - most of the country is shall-issue. It is only a minority of states that are not, and those don't have a legislative climate to enact it by law. So we must challenge bad law on the books. 

 

 

 

I vote, as does my wife. The rest of my family doesn't. My mom maybe but I try not to encourage her (she likes Hillary and Obama). I have also helped out candidates that follow my beliefs. 

 

I agree we should vote to get what we want, but that doesn't preclude other avenues.

 

 

 

Of course it isn't. But it's a good start. 

 

Ryan makes a lot of sense here.........I agree 1,000%  

Due to the demographics of the PRNJ, we will most likely never be able to vote them out so we must rely on other channels!

 

If I get RKBA restored, I could care less how I got it!!!  I just care that me and my family will have a chance to survive an attack outside of my home and

that I can give the local undertaker some business that I don't have to pay for!

[bhunted 887]

(Grabbing beer....... )

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Grab one for me John! After today, my nerves are shot!  I am on #7 now!!!

 

We all need to mellow out a bit.

[Vlad G 345]

I'm enjoying my wine, and the conversation, I like breaking clay idols

 

But I'm going to bed, so I'll catch up on this in the morning.