Jump to content
Mrs. Peel

SCOTUS & 2A Cases... Roberts is Apparently Weak Link

Recommended Posts

You will recall that SCOTUS recently declined to take up several 2A cases (like the one in NYC where a restrictive law made it illegal to transport to an owner's 2nd house or an out-of-state competition, etc.). Many of you theorized that the pro-2A judges may have known (or strongly suspected) that they would lose the vote and that's why they declined the case. Recent reporting infers you were correct & that Roberts indicated he would side with the liberal Supremes on that case: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/conservative-justices-declined-to-take-up-second-amendment-case-after-roberts-signaled-he-would-side-with-liberals-report/ 

BTW, I put this is in a public-facing forum... so, pls post nothing inflammatory or over-the-top... you'll just waste our time to remove it. Appreciate your cooperation with that! :good:

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to stop pretending Roberts is nothing but a liberal and a never Trumper. Forget about this "they got stuff on him" nonsense we keep hearing.

Also, Roberts has said he didn't want to turn the court into a political body. He's done exactly that to a great extend. 

Anyway the CNN article offers a lot more meat on the subject

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/politics/john-roberts-supreme-court-liberals-daca-second-amendment/index.html

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, WP22 said:

It's time to stop pretending Roberts is nothing but a liberal and a never Trumper. Forget about this "they got stuff on him" nonsense we keep hearing.

Also, Roberts has said he didn't want to turn the court into a political body. He's done exactly that to a great extend. 

Maybe CJ Roberts will escort his uber-liberal buddy RBG to her next home in the eternal netherworld. When he gets there with her and sees the opportunities to rise to the top in that place full of ne'er-do-wells, he'll decide to stay and help run the place.

One can only hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PDM said:

So why didn’t the 4 liberal justices vote to grant cert. If Roberts was clearly with them they could have put a nail in the coffin of 2A outside the home once and for all. 

That's an excellent question.  Perhaps they didn't want to toss that hand grenade so close to a Presidential election? After all, voting to protect or even restore individual rights is probably always going to be a bit less controversial that voting to strip individual rights ... perhaps the liberal justices worried that essentially spitting on an individual's right to self-defense (while they themselves benefit from taxpayer-funded police protection) would only serve to galvanize the political opposition?  Just a hunch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. This case would have been heard after the election. Probably in the spring. And the liberal justices would not let political considerations stop them from putting a nail in the coffin of the 2a. I am guessing the Roberts’ views remained vague enough that neither side wanted to chance it. I dont think its so simple. 

Share this post


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

This case would have been heard after the election. Probably in the spring.

Is that the timeline? I didn't realize that. If so, you're probably right... Roberts may be wishy-washy enough that neither side has confidence in how he'll swing on a 2A case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wolf in sheep's clothing? Quite possibly...

Perhaps the playing of a trump card (in this case, quite literally) is a possible answer: Deputize every legal citizen of the United States as federal officers.  This removes all interference at the state level as it concerns firearms laws. Basically it's the same immunity from state law enjoyed by the US Postal Service for its fleets' registration of inspection.

As we all know, all presidents have plenary pardon power (we see this time and again each time an administration comes to a close). But, more importantly, they also have the power of appointment. Such an appointment would not require the advice and consent of the Senate (as it is not a principal office). And any interference from the Supreme Court would be barred under the Constitution's Separation of Powers doctrine.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

A wolf in sheep's clothing? Quite possibly...

Perhaps the playing of a trump card (in this case, quite literally) is a possible answer: Deputize every legal citizen of the United States as federal officers.  This removes all interference at the state level as it concerns firearms laws. Basically it's the same immunity from state law enjoyed by the US Postal Service for its fleets' registration of inspection.

As we all know, all presidents have plenary pardon power (we see this time and again each time an administration comes to a close). But, more importantly, they also have the power of appointment. Such an appointment would not require the advice and consent of the Senate (as it is not a principal office). And any interference from the Supreme Court would be barred under the Constitution's Separation of Powers doctrine.

 

 

 

Trumps only Pro-gun when he needs to win an election.. sorry.

  • Agree 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should have been enough support to take at least one of the 10 cases even during an election year. I truly believed as did many, that the courts were on our side and had the sacred duty to break these blatantly unconstitutional laws. I(we) were WRONG, these judges instead chose to be derelict in their duties. As a result, we now enter the "dark ages" so to speak, where we are increasingly subject to the whims of gun-grabbers, hoplophobes that despise the concept of self defense, and destructive domestic terrorists disguised as intellectuals seeking social change. 2020, will go down as a year characterized by pure madness, all of which emanates from the democratic party. 

Welcome to the dark ages!!! :dwarf:

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 2:26 AM, Mrs. Peel said:

Is that the timeline? I didn't realize that. If so, you're probably right... Roberts may be wishy-washy enough that neither side has confidence in how he'll swing on a 2A case. 

I think this is part of it. I think all the discussion in the past that Kennedy was the unpredictable vote was wrong and it was roberts. 

On top of that is not just about the 2a. It's about the precedent. The left might happily vote against the second, but what they say can come back to haunt their pet decisions.  

Three recent remand back to the lower courts on the Nevada church issue was created with some spite. It was a leftist win technically, but it undermines the premise at the root of roe vs Wade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, marlintag said:

There should have been enough support to take at least one of the 10 cases even during an election year. I truly believed as did many, that the courts were on our side and had the sacred duty to break these blatantly unconstitutional laws. I(we) were WRONG, these judges instead chose to be derelict in their duties. As a result, we now enter the "dark ages" so to speak, where we are increasingly subject to the whims of gun-grabbers, hoplophobes that despise the concept of self defense, and destructive domestic terrorists disguised as intellectuals seeking social change. 2020, will go down as a year characterized by pure madness, all of which emanates from the democratic party. 

Welcome to the dark ages!!! :dwarf:

 

 

 

It will be "The dark ages "only if we allow it to happen........After all, we do have a say in the matter!  In more ways than one! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 12:37 AM, PDM said:

Meh. This case would have been heard after the election. Probably in the spring. And the liberal justices would not let political considerations stop them from putting a nail in the coffin of the 2a. I am guessing the Roberts’ views remained vague enough that neither side wanted to chance it. I dont think its so simple. 

I think that is exactly right.  Roberts likely played both wings off against one another.  Like the conservatives, the liberals were probably getting mixed signals from the Chief on where he would come down on these firearm issues and the libs had no more stomach to try and force the issue that the conservatives did.  His goal was to maintain the status quo, keep the Court from being a lightning rod and he clearly succeeded.

What will be interesting is the impact of the election.  If Trump wins, RBG will likely be gone inside of the four years.  Another solid conservative vote moots out the Chief's gamesmanship.  On the other hand, if Biden wins, RBG retires and now the liberals have the majority and do not need Roberts any more to advance their agenda.  So the Chief goes back to the conservatives and writes or joins meaningless dissents ostensibly adopting the conservative view of issues.  Either way, the Chief is the big loser in the next presidential election in my view.

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...