Alito dissent blasts NYC gun law, as Supreme Court punts on highly charged case
FoxNews,
by
Tyler Olson
Original Article
Posted By: crankyyankee,
4/29/2020 10:56:37 AM
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to decide on the constitutionality of a controversial New York City gun law that has since changed, ruling in an unsigned opinion that the case is now "moot" because of the changes in the law.
he court's move to even hear the gun rights case despite a perceived procedural issue previously drew veiled threats from Democratic senators who filed a brief in the case, saying "[t]he Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Bill O Rights 4/29/2020 11:04:38 AM (No. 395357)
Another John "the spineless" Roberts special. It appears that he is trying to neuter Heller and McDonald by letting the lower courts run amuck.
13 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 4/29/2020 11:25:33 AM (No. 395401)
I see this as different. It appears there are at least 4 justices not satisfied with this law or its replay law. I suspect NY will be defending the replay law soon in court and NY knows it faces serious opposition at the SCOTUS. It might be one case the liberals don't want in front of the court cause it will eviscerate liberals 'common sense' 2nd amendment restriction laws they so love.
8 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 4/29/2020 11:36:32 AM (No. 395417)
They have been making veiled threats regarding the SCOTUS for awhile now, pretty much since Trump got elected. If anyone could face prosecution for their sins, I wish it would be Roberts. For his willingness to abandon his professionalism in supervising the FISA court, he should pay for that with whatever legal action they can make stick. I would even settle for him resigning, just get him OFF the court bench.
20 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
iraengneer 4/29/2020 11:39:53 AM (No. 395420)
Meanwhile, the loathsome and utterly unconstitutional Sullivan Act, an open abridgment of "shall NOT be infringed", has been on the books since around 1911. Thanks to the evil scuzzballs called " progressives". If their is a pit beneath a privy in Perdition, may they reside there forever. I'll believe that important improvements are happening when that goes into the dump.
13 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
hershey 4/29/2020 12:07:16 PM (No. 395456)
Those butt wipe democrats are only saying the Court is 'not well' because it isn't top heavy with liberals anymore...more and more I think aliens have arrived and inhabited only democrat/liberal humans...
5 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
RidgePole 4/29/2020 12:46:47 PM (No. 395500)
Someone is not well and I think the dhimmi-c rats are projecting again.
3 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Clinger 4/29/2020 12:51:23 PM (No. 395505)
If they took the teeth out of this law what's left? What lasting purpose does it serve? Sounds to me like intentional ambiguity potentially turning a wrong turn into a crime. Not a law at all but a license for arbitrary rule.
5 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
BarryNo 4/29/2020 1:05:43 PM (No. 395522)
The surest sign that we're not out of the woods yet is the Democrats continued attempts to threaten the highest court when they don't get their way. I would say we are at least as much in danger of succession and revolution as we were in 1850. And its for the same damn reasons. Democrats are natural totalitarians. They HATE freedom.
They like slavery, when they are the Masters. They often like to speak about talent skill and creating a Leadership of the Intelligentsia...
But in reality, its a narrow field that includes the Leadership. It is comprised of those people who agree with their absolute desire to rule with an iron hand, every inch of every place inhabited by intelligent life. Anyone who doesn't fit the criteria, could be an Eistein, a Marcus Aurelius, a Lord Byron, a Bill Gates...
If they don't hold to the enslavement of their fellows in their hearts, they don't count as Intelligentsia.
8 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
wakeupcall 4/29/2020 1:18:47 PM (No. 395536)
"restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics."
You mean like the Marxist Communist democrats have been doing for forever. Until now, and that there are supposed to be 5 Constitution following justices and only 4 Marxist Communist democrats trying to legally send America into the Marxist Communist democrat controlled cesspool of the Globalists One World Government.
7 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
curious1 4/29/2020 2:33:14 PM (No. 395580)
Restructured? OK, so just remove the 4 leftards (shrink the court slots to 5) and replace Roberts with the proposed RBG replacement.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
EQKimball 4/29/2020 3:00:17 PM (No. 395594)
SCOTUS at the least should have issued an order for amicus counsel to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for attempting to politically threaten the Court. The Court could have then levied a huge fine and disbarred them from practicing in the federal courts. .
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
DVC 4/29/2020 3:09:23 PM (No. 395604)
Probably best not to try to hang important Supreme Court rulings on moot cases. It is good that the NY folks freaked out and KNEW that they couldn't get that law to pass muster, so quickly erased it before the court could act to create a real precedent. Basically, the NY folks ran scared.
I have been working on 2nd Amendment issues (years sending out 7,000 newsletters a month that I wrote as communications director for a large KS gun rights organization, testifying regularly at legislative hearings, and helping to pass and write several gun rights laws, helping to defeat several bad gun laws, writing some of our the concealed carry regulations) since I first got a letter to the editor published against what became the 1968 Gun Control Act when I when I was 16, and had already bought several guns through the mail - legally, then.
One thing I have learned is that rolling this hell storm back is a slow, difficult process. It is necessary to find "the right case" and bring it before "the right court" at "the right time".
Unfortunately, if you have a weak case or the court is packed with leftists, or the public mood isn't amenable....it is (very sad to say) better to leave that one and wait for all things to be right.
Heller and McDonald are HUGE big deals. And we need to carefully build upon those cases, and
be very alert not to fail in that process due to a weak case. A moot case is weak, not a great foundation to build a lasting 2nd Amendment recovery upon. A "live to fight another day" sort of a thing, which is never very satisfying, for certain.
We ARE winning. More and more people realize that gun control is NOT the answer. I was at two big gun stores today, looking for a specific handgun for a friend. Both stores were low on stock, selling rapidly, restocking and selling out again, and ammo sales have been frantic, shelves are nearly bare in one HUGE store. People are more and more realizing that they need their gun rights, and less willing to have them taken away or limited.
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
lakerman1 4/29/2020 9:22:24 PM (No. 395843)
As an arbitrator, I never decided issues that were not before me.and while i appreciate Justice Alito's dissent, he is incorrect.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "crankyyankee"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)