Jump to content
gunforhire

Well, well, well. The Supremes Just woke up NJ -High Court Considers Taking ANJRPC Appeal

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sniper said:

I'll be really surprised if anything positive comes of this in the SC. Any case that's 2A related is a EXTREME hot potato in the country today. I think the last thing the judges want is HALF the electorate pissed off at them, and will probably just punt on arguing these cases.

All you need to do is remember how a certain segment of the population tried to DESTROY Kavanaugh's life. Why would any other judge want to risk their personal lives like that by stepping into a BIG hornets nest of a 2A case?

 

Personally I don't think Supreme Court Justices give two craps what politicians think of their rulings.  I believe the only reason a carry case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet is because of Kennedy.  They just took the NY case on travel restrictions, this could be the time to settle the nonsense happening in lower courts in terms of the level of scrutiny that courts can apply and whether the assertion that some of the lower courts have made around the 2nd amendment only being applicable in the home, thus carry restrictions that outright ban carry in any form do not infringe on the core right.  Which is an abomination of reading Heller.  Fingers crossed.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sniper said:

 

So, that's why they argued every 2A case that came across the bench the last decade or so, right?

oh, wait...

Supreme Court agrees to hear gun rights case after nearly a decade of inaction on Second Amendment

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case/2482910002/

 

That's because it has been a 5-4 spilt and Kennedy a huge concern.  Many have argued that the reason Heller didn't go further was because that was the only way to get Kennedy on board.  This is why they didn't take any cases.  They just granted cert in the case you quote because the there is a lot more certainty that they will have 5.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

That's because it has been a 5-4 spilt and Kennedy a huge concern. 

 

28 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

Personally I don't think Supreme Court Justices give two craps what politicians think of their rulings.

Wouldn't that be called "politics"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Nj offers neither open or concealed to the citizenry. I believe there is dicta on this with the DC case? I know I’ve read it in one of circuit opinions.

NJ doesn’t draw a distinction between open or concealed.  If you manage to satisfy the currently near-impossible justifiable need standard, you get a “carry” license which allows any kind of carry you want - open or concealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darrenf said:

Words mean things.  If that is beyond your ability to comprehend, then I apologize.

When you get down in the weeds and start nitpicking individual words, instead of considering the complete premise of the argument, well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sniper said:

When you get down in the weeds and start nitpicking individual words, instead of considering the complete premise of the argument, well....

Says the guy that has gone from arguing "Playing politics, to a few posts later "political bias" and finally just to "politics".

 

Like I said, if comprehension and meaning of words is beyond your abilities, I feel sorry for you, but don't try to blame me for your inadequacies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the sense that Sniper was referring to.  There is a divide that sits within SCOTUS not on "politics" as the media likes to say i.e. republican jurists and democratic jurists but rather a philosophical difference.  That difference is whether you strictly interpret the constitution as the founders understood it when it was written i.e. "textualism" or whether you can interpret it however you want based on what ever you think the American people want but clearly didn't vote on.  If you want to call that politics within the court I'll give you that.  Sniper was implying that jurists might not weigh in on an issue because they won't like Congress' reaction and I disagree with that. I believe they with held granting cert because of stare decisis in contrary to their philosophical beliefs and unfortunately there were not enough firm "textualists" to get it through.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

NJ doesn’t draw a distinction between open or concealed.  If you manage to satisfy the currently near-impossible justifiable need standard, you get a “carry” license which allows any kind of carry you want - open or concealed.

I concur, and they offer none.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

Not in the sense that Sniper was referring to.  There is a divide that sits within SCOTUS not on "politics" as the media likes to say i.e. republican jurists and democratic jurists but rather a philosophical difference.  That difference is whether you strictly interpret the constitution as the founders understood it when it was written i.e. "textualism" or whether you can interpret it however you want based on what ever you think the American people want but clearly didn't vote on.  If you want to call that politics within the court I'll give you that.  Sniper was implying that jurists might not weigh in on an issue because they won't like Congress' reaction and I disagree with that. I believe they with held granting cert because of stare decisis in contrary to their philosophical beliefs and unfortunately there were not enough firm "textualists" to get it through.

 Jurist Constitutional philosophy difers greatly from “ they scared”.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

There is a divide that sits within SCOTUS not on "politics" as the media likes to say i.e. republican jurists and democratic jurists but rather a philosophical difference. 

So you think there is no political divide and they can't be considered "republican or democrat jurists"? That their political leaning has no affect on their rulings?

..."Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.

These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html

So, there's no chance her political beliefs have any bearing on her decisions?

More from that link:

...." It was a credit to the eight-member court that it deadlocked only four times, she said, given the ideological divide between its liberal and conservative wings, both with four members. "

That sounds a little bit different than "philosophical".

43 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

If you want to call that politics within the court I'll give you that. 

It certainly sounds that way, doesn't it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

afaik, Roberts' opinions have always been originalist, pro 2A.

That is true, but it seems the longer these fucks sit on those benches the dumber they get.

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

That is true, but it seems the longer these fucks sit on those benches the dumber they get.

In my view the longer they're on the bench, the further fidelity to their true purpose recedes in their minds and the more they view themselves as Good Deed Doers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sniper said:

That's the whole point, they play politics MORE than play Constitution.

Thanks for proving my point.   Duh......

So why haven't they taken on hardly any 2A cases the past decade, if they give zero fucks... hmmmmmm..

Because if if there's four people who give zero fucks about what the public has to say and are pro RKBA and four people who give zero fucks what the public has to say who are gun grabbers, and one person who gives zero fucks about what the public thinks who may vote any which way, you don't grant cert unless you think you can win the argument with the court, who you do give a fuck what they think. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sniper said:

So you think there is no political divide and they can't be considered "republican or democrat jurists"? That their political leaning has no affect on their rulings?

..."Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.

These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html

So, there's no chance her political beliefs have any bearing on her decisions?

More from that link:

...." It was a credit to the eight-member court that it deadlocked only four times, she said, given the ideological divide between its liberal and conservative wings, both with four members. "

That sounds a little bit different than "philosophical".

It certainly sounds that way, doesn't it?

 

No I don’t.  I think Republicans and Democrats pick judges based on what works for their politics.  I believe for the most part Supreme Court Justices decide on philosophical grounds.  My opinion.   Didn’t say you were right or wrong my option is they disagree on philosophical grounds.  That doesn’t mean people don’t have bias.  Thats is always a factor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how it won't be struck down.  DC's permit scheme was based on NJ's and that fell end of 2017.  

I know the wheels of justice move slowly but I've been waiting for this ever since DC fell.  

If NJ were smart (which they aren't) they would just concede already. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gleninjersey said:

I don't know how it won't be struck down.  DC's permit scheme was based on NJ's and that fell end of 2017.  

I know the wheels of justice move slowly but I've been waiting for this ever since DC fell.  

If NJ were smart (which they aren't) they would just concede already. 

DC didn't get heard in the Supreme court though.  They withdrew knowing it could be struck down, at the behest of the holdout states, NJ included.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

DC didn't get heard in the Supreme court though.  They withdrew knowing it could be struck down, at the behest of the holdout states, NJ included.  

Yep, I get that.  That's why "IF" NJ were smart they would concede to try to delay the inevitable for their other pinko commie, socialist buddies.  

But they won't.  And hopefully it all comes crashing down.

Can't wait to make some popcorn and watch it unfold.  Ashame it moves so damn slow.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...