Mrs. Peel 7,156 Posted July 27, 2020 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! 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WP22 1,558 Posted July 27, 2020 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 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted July 27, 2020 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm1827 284 Posted July 27, 2020 This is really disturbing and disheartening, to say the least. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bklynracer 1,263 Posted July 27, 2020 How could he single that before even hearing a case? That doesn't bound well for our justice system, Yes I know some will say we don't have one, this just makes me believe it even more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted July 29, 2020 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,156 Posted July 29, 2020 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted July 29, 2020 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,156 Posted July 29, 2020 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted July 29, 2020 I’ve heard John Lott, who has a new book out, say exactly the same thing on some recent interviews. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
father-of-three 242 Posted July 29, 2020 One more supreme court pick by a second term Trump would be great and two would be phenominal. Dont let the dark-dyed blue color of New Jersey stop you from voting for Trump in November! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCarlsonNJ 1 Posted July 29, 2020 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted July 29, 2020 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. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marlintag 223 Posted July 30, 2020 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!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted July 30, 2020 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,321 Posted July 31, 2020 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!!! 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Underdog 1,593 Posted July 31, 2020 Roberts is weak and compromised. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princetonian58 53 Posted August 7, 2020 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bklynracer 1,263 Posted August 7, 2020 2 hours ago, Princetonian58 said: Either way, the Chief is the big loser in the next presidential election in my view. If Trump doesn't win we are the big losers, Roberts does just want he does now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted August 24, 2020 I think he's compromised but I have a weird feeling that if trump wins, and say RBG retires and we get the trump appointed majority we need to win 2A cases, he will side with the 2A to not be on the losing side and it'll be a 6-3 decision not a 5-4. But since he is currently the 5 on the winning side of the 5-4 decision we would lose big time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RUTGERS95 890 Posted August 24, 2020 I too believe they have something on Roberts. His voting decisions are mind boggling 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted August 24, 2020 6 hours ago, RUTGERS95 said: I too believe they have something on Roberts. His voting decisions are mind boggling From the perspective of Roberts fans, his decisions are designed to keep the court apolitical. Except that if that is the case, he sure manages to be politically manipulated. I think it is a more loser situation. I think they get weird because he tries to exhibit the independence he can get away with. Which doesn't make for the most logical rulings when you compare across many of them. To me anyway, he seems to be the DNC's whipping boy on big issues, and then shelters behind promoting judicial technicalities to try and squirrel away some discretionary powers to the judicial branch in lower courts. Which at the end of the day is really fucked because it essentially means that there isn't a lot of authority beyond the circuit courts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites