We'd like to think the Supreme Court would protect 2nd Amendment rights but a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas gives doubt.
The dissent is about a California case about a mandatory 10-day waiting period to be observed even for those who already owned guns legally and had already gone through the permitting and background check. The waiting period was struck down by the District Court but then upheld by the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case leaving the 9th Circuit decision in place.
Professor Jacobson writing for his site Legal Insurrection thinks that other Justices most likely share Thomas' opinion but there are not enough of them to turn the case. Having the dissent issued in Thomas' name without any other Justices included might be tactical, issued as warning as to what is happening at the supreme Court when it comes to protection of 2nd Amendment rights.
Here is the dissent in Scrid and in pdf.
Professor Jacobson has much more on this, the Democrat pressure that affects the Supreme Court, salient excerpts from the dissent, astute observations and remarks, and references to previous videos and posts on the subject. As usual his comment section is excellent, even the trolls are a higher class, most are lawyers or law students who tend to be disputative.
5 comments:
This is why what Trump is doing in filling as many vacancies on the Federal bench is so important.
There are at least 3 SCUS seats that could open up while he's President and he wants to get good Conservatives in there, so those seats have good people to fill them.
I went to LI and I think they've made a boo-boo with their most recent posting. Or maybe they're just honoring the gay Olympics.
The 2A is SCOTUS is persona non grata. Other than Heller, they will not look at any laws that directly attack a citizens 2A rights. Their last rejection and why Thomas is speaking out on this is due to two challenges against the onerous fees California requires for gun registration and the continual 10 day background check period of every gun purchase that is split with a 30 day cooling off period.
They simply refused to hear it. It's wrong and it needs to stop.
I agree with Justice Thomas on this, and I am grateful he's sounding the alarm. This suggests to me, by the way, that he's not likely to step down anytime soon. He knows the situation on the Court isn't as good as people may think.
That said, I persist in thinking that the Second Amendment is the last thing we need to worry about with the Supreme Court. I say that because there is there is such a well organized movement around gun rights in this country, which is the real strength, better than the Constitution itself.
Suppose Sec. Clinton had won, and appointed the worst-you-can-imagine-on-guns, and further suppose the Court had issued the worst possible opinion on gun rights: in effect, vitiating the Second Amendment. Then what?
I can think of nothing that would do a better job of electing even more gun-rights advocates to Congress and to every state legislature in the country. As it is, gunnies do very well in most state legislatures. Yes, the situation is terrible in California, New York, Connecticut and several other states; and if the Court nixed the Second Amendment, these states would lead the charge to get the guns.
But even in some of these states, a decision like this would mobilize gun owners as they have never been mobilized before; and I suspect we'd see some happy surprises. And even where the worst legislation passed, you'd have quite a lot of county sheriffs flat out refuse to do anything with the laws, either because they didn't agree, or because they didn't relish going to take people's guns.
Meanwhile, in the vast majority of states, the move would be in the opposite direction. I'd bet on quite a lot of states writing gun rights explicitly into their state constitutions. Meanwhile, gun grabbers in Congress would see even more losses. Overall, it would be a rout for the Left.
In other words, they'd be crazy to do it. Instead, they do what Thomas is highlighting.
Meanwhile, speaking of Justice Thomas, there was another case handed down today, where he played a useful role. It was a case called DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, INC., PETITIONER v. PAUL SOMERS. The case itself was pretty dry and technical, and in the end, the justices were unanimous in the outcome. But Thomas penned a short concurrence that said this:
I join the Court’s opinion only to the extent it relies on the text of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.... I am unable to join the portions of the Court’s
opinion that venture beyond the statutory text.
In other words, the majority opinion wandered into the weeds of "legislative history," which was something the late, great Justice Scalia exposed eloquently as humbuggery. Now, just take note of who joined with Thomas: Alito and Gorsuch. Meaning, Roberts and Kennedy went the other way.
Lots of people assume that once Kennedy is replaced with someone sound, we have a solid majority to do the right things. Don't bet on it. Watch Roberts. He wants everyone to get along, and he doesn't like it if the Court seems too...whatever. Watch and see if he doesn't take up the Kennedy mantle the second Kennedy heads off to The Villages.
Post a Comment