The Supreme Court Fiddles While the Second Amendment Burns – Part 1, An Abdication of Duty

Supreme court justices

(Leah Millis/Pool via AP)

By John Velleco

For the last decade, the United States Supreme Court has abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve “cases and controversies” involving the Second Amendment. It has run from its historic duty, as articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall, “to say what the law is.”

The High Court has stood on the sideline while the lower federal courts have allowed government at all levels to infringe the People’s right to keep and bear arms. It has watched silently while its seminal Second Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) have been undermined by anti-gun district and circuit court judges. The Supreme Court’s neglect of its historic duty to protect the Second Amendment-protected rights of Americans has been nothing less than shameful. But in the last few weeks, it has gotten much worse.

It is time for a bit of introspection. Gun owners need to think through not just what has happened to us, but also how we need to change our strategy — leading us to read, ponder, and then pen three articles on this critical topic.

This first article explains the sad state of affairs at the Supreme Court at this time, and contrasts current losses with the great victories won in Heller and McDonald a decade ago. Part Two of this series will explain what happened over the decade between these great victories and the current series of defeats. We will show to the best of our ability how the position of the dissenting justices in Heller gained the ascendency over the Heller majority. And in Part Three, we will offer a plan so the gun movement can chart its course back to victory.

First, let’s analyze the sad state of affairs we now face.

On April 27, 2020, in New York Rifle & Pistol v. New York City, Chief Justice Roberts joined the anti-gun, Democrat-appointed Justices on the Court to declare that New York politicians could manipulate the judiciary by enacting anti-gun laws, and then repealing them after years of litigation — just before it appeared they would be struck down by federal courts. Gun owners were shocked that the Supreme Court could declare the years-long litigation “moot” when everyone knew that New York was playing games with the Court, but the Chief Justice did not seem to have the will to use that opportunity to defend the Second Amendment.

But there was still hope. After all, there still were 10 pending petitions for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. No doubt at least one of those cases would be a good vehicle for the pro-gun justices to re-affirm Justice Scalia’s decision in Heller and Justice Alito’s opinion in McDonald. But then, on one notable day, June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court denied certiorari review in all 10 pending petitions.

Could it be true that not one of these cases provided a good fact pattern to issue a helpful decision? Doubtful.

Supreme Court inaction is certainly not the worst thing that could happen.

Justice Thomas wrote a stunning dissent in one of those cases, Rogers v. Grewal, calling out the Court for abandoning the Second Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh joined in the portion of the Thomas dissent that addressed the need of the Court to weigh back in on the Second Amendment. Justice Alito, wrote the McDonald decision, and with his demonstrated support for the Second Amendment, it appears we have three pro-gun justices. Where are the rest?

As of today, there is only one gun case of note now pending on certiorari — Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, where GOA filed the only amicus brief supporting the petition on May 20, 2020. The Supreme Court ordered San Jose to file a reply to the petition — always a good sign — and we hope for the best, but there is no guarantee that Rodriguez will not go the way of the other 10 petitions. On June 17, 2020, the City of San Jose filed its opposition brief, and although San Jose took the unusual step of withholding consent to the filing of GOA’s amicus brief, San Jose addressed several of the arguments raised by our brief, referring to us as “proposed amici.”

The most likely reason that the High Court rejected all 10 cases was that there was one (or more) anti-gun Justice(s) among the five Republican-appointed judges on that Court who could not be trusted. (Who might that be?) If so, it would be better to wait for President Trump to get re-elected, and have one more Justice appointed to replace a Democrat, to assemble a majority of five pro-gun votes among six GOP justices, rather than allow Chief Justice Roberts (who upheld Obamacare) or Justice Gorsuch (who just rewrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act) to again side with the solid anti-gun Democratic bloc on the Court, the pro-gun justices would continue to bide their time.

Supreme Court inaction is certainly not the worst thing that could happen. President Trump’s appointments to the lower federal courts are turning some of the twelve federal circuits from anti-gun to pro-gun, and every month that passes, the turnover in lower court judges improves gun rights. And it certainly is true that a bad Second Amendment decision would be worse than inaction, as it would undermine — not strengthen — the power of the Supreme Court’s most recent guidance in Heller and McDonald.

Supreme Court 2A second amendment

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

One of the reasons that we thought that the Heller and McDonald decisions were landmarks is not just because the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, and that the Second Amendment applied to the states, but also because those decisions set out the method by which future gun cases were to be decided. This methodology issue is the critical issue facing us now.

Before Heller, the Second Amendment was the most significant constitutional provision without a long line of Supreme Court cases trying to explain its meaning. The justices knew that in Heller, they had the first case of any sort where they were unconstrained by precedent giving them a historic opportunity to get it right.

The amicus brief filed by Gun Owners of America took advantage of the moment, rejecting the application of commonly used “interest balancing” tests. We stated: “According to its text, context, and historic setting, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to private possession and use of handguns in one’s own home.” We argued, simply, that, “[w]hether the right to keep and bear arms is violated, then, must turn on whether the particular firearm regulations ‘infringes’ either the class of persons who, by nature, constitute the ‘people’ or the class of ‘arms’ appropriate to a ‘well regulated militia’.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court in Heller rejected the application of First Amendment jurisprudence to the Second Amendment.

However, others briefing the case fell back on what was familiar to them and argued Heller as though it were a First Amendment case, employing judge-made standards of review based on classifying rights as “fundamental” or not, “interest balancing,” and standards of review such as “strict scrutiny,” “intermediate scrutiny,” and “rational basis” analysis.

These other lawyers did not see the danger in arguing First Amendment tests should be applied in the Second Amendment arena. But, there is a fundamental difference. With the First Amendment, the government’s interests are often not substantial. However, with guns, the courts must weigh the government’s interest in public safety against the people’s right to arm themselves — a construct where public safety almost always wins.

Chief Justice Roberts rejected the use of First Amendment balancing tests during oral argument in Heller:

Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, “compelling interest,” “significant interest,” “narrowly tailored,” none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to….

Consistent with Justice Robert’s observations, Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court in Heller rejected the application of First Amendment jurisprudence to the Second Amendment. “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” He rejected what he called “judge-empowering” interest balancing, as the Second Amendment itself “is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people.”

The McDonald decision followed the Heller model. In McDonald, even dissenting Justice Breyer recognized that Heller had rejected interest balancing in deciding Second Amendment cases.

But after giving gun owners huge victories in Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court has gone silent for a decade while the lower courts have used Justice Breyer’s “interest balancing” to give victory after victory to anti-gun state and local government lawyers. These lower court judges have tried to reduce the Heller victory to its facts — that no government entity can enact a complete ban on a handgun in the home — and nothing else.

As President Trump alters the composition of the lower federal courts, the trend is moving in the right direction, but how and why was the momentum lost after Heller and McDonald? That is the subject of Part II in this series of articles. And, in Part III, we will suggest a path forward to change our strategies in order to achieve victory in the Courts.

 

John Velleco is the Executive Vice President of Gun Owners of America, a grassroots lobbying organization with more than two million members and supporters nationwide.

comments

  1. avatar Robert A says:

    Remember it is imperative we elect “Conservatives” like Bush so we can get “Conservative Justices” on the Supreme Court.

    Thanks a lot for Roberts.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I am beginning to wonder about those commenters who trash Trump and disavow voting.

      Are these:
      – men of principle?
      – trolls trying to undermine the resolve of PotG to make the best of the situation?

      Doubtlessly, some of each. Are the former the useful idiots of the latter? Unlikely to be the other way round. Yet, the effect is the same.

      As a practical matter, it all boils down to:
      – Biden or Trump;
      – the swing states;
      – whether begrudging Trump supporters are prepared to hold their noses, close their eyes, and outnumber the dead who vote early and often.

      1. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

        Look at it this way, hiwever many trolls you have to start, if you call “troll” to avoid uncomfortable facts, you’re going to have more trolls on your hands. So the question of whether you got trolls boils down to whether any if you red-blooded patriots be so ignorant, weak and whiney as to dissemble by pulling a troll ad-hominem? That’s what I want to know.

        1. avatar Thixotropic says:

          Very few trolls. Most are criminals paid by organizations like Arabella Advisors or other Globalist slush funds.

          Just like you, they are only here to disrupt.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Very few trolls. Most are criminals paid by organizations like Arabella Advisors or other Globalist slush funds. Just like you, they are only here to disrupt.”

          Disrupting an echo chamber would be a bad thing?

        3. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

          Ecce homo.

        4. avatar Ron says:

          Yet the fact remains, Olympic, you are a paid Mcrystal troll. Polish that turd and insult all you want, it does change what you are.

          You suddenly just showed up, out of the blue, shortly after Mcrystal announced his left wing troll army, and then you proceed to do exactly what that left wing troll army is ordered to do.

          Doesn’t take a doctorate in politics to see what you are up to.

    2. avatar Doc Samson says:

      Voting for the “least worst” candidate has led us here. Not saying there was much choice BUT electing country club Repubs doesn’t ever help, it just introduces infringements more slowly. Finding a true Constitutional conservative at this point would take a miracle…

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        Without Bush, the 2A would be dead by now. Roberts has been mixed and not what we hoped (though still signed onto Heller!), but Alito has been an ally.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        17 people stepped up last time while that birch ran against Bernie for the nomination. The voters selected Trump not out of the blue or in a back room deal, they had a variety of choices. So to say he was a lesser of two evils is not really true. He was the choice out of 17. The dems got two choices only because Bernie didn’t give a shit what the DNC said.
        If DJT is so bad whom would you rather see the Rs run, this time right now?

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          Nobody. Trump is too toxic to run against at this point. He’s a mud monster who is unbeatable at mud slinging and only gets stronger when you throw mud at him. Wait 4 years, throw in Ted Cruz, and fight what ever lunatic puppet the (D)’s throw on stage.

          I don’t like Trump but I don’t hate him either. Trump is Trump and there’s a certain amount of honesty there I don’t see in well polished politicians. Even when he lies, at least his lies are so stupid, bombastic, sarcastic, and transparent, that nobody gets the impression he’s trying to fool anybody….. at least anybody with half a brain who understands /s/arcasm.

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Wait 4 years, throw in Ted Cruz, and fight what ever lunatic puppet the (D)’s throw on stage.”

          Ted, even though I like a lot of him, could be problematic.

          We have one other very strong candidate, Ambassador Niki “I don’t get confused” Haley.

          With her, you’ve cut the Leftists off at the knees with their standard attacks. Female, personable, intelligent, minority, etc, etc, etc….

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “With her, you’ve cut the Leftists off at the knees with their standard attacks. Female, personable, intelligent, minority, etc, etc, etc….”

          No. She would be another Sarah Palin, at best, and an easily slimed sellout/traitor to her race, identity, and “me too” at worst. Look around at any “conservative” woman running for office the first time. TDS would swallow her up.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          There’s something all president’s have in common: charisma. Ted Cruz seems to lack that, so I don’t see him winning except under ideal circumstances. Hillary lacked it, but she did get within spitting distance.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          “his lies are so stupid, bombastic, sarcastic, and transparent”

          So true, so true… And yet, you folks continue to worship and vote for him.

          Fascinating.

          And Sarah Palin is a race traitor?

          Fascinating.

        6. avatar xtphreak says:

          For everybody chanting “Cruz Cruz Cruz”.
          He was born in Calgary, Canada.
          Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States

          “…No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. …”

        7. avatar A. Ham. says:

          Naturalization Act of 1790 — “the children of citizens of the United States, that may born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

          People born to American citizens are natural-born citizens. The first Congress passed this law to clarify that.

      3. avatar Bill says:

        I fear that you may be correct. That said, my choice between President Trump and Biden is clear. Trump for the next four years. Whosoever partners with Biden will surely end up being the unelected President to finish Bidens term after he takes a preordained tumble down a flight of stairs. I am terrified of that person of whatever stripe she/he may be.

    3. avatar ETC: says:

      The view I have of the –Supreme Court of The United States– in action is, they may be laying a road map for the future. I.E. if the current case (s) do not warrant the courts attention, perhaps future filings should find a common denominator (topic) to cover (encompass) all the previous unaddressed filings.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The view I have of the –Supreme Court of The United States– in action is, they may be laying a road map for the future.”

        The Justices of the Supreme Court playing 4-D chess???…..Interesting.

    4. avatar ETC: says:

      .The view I have of the –Supreme Court of The United States– in action is, they may be laying a road map for the future. I.E. if the current case (s) do not warrant the courts attention, perhaps future filings should find a common denominator (topic) to cover (encompass) all the previous unaddressed filings.

    5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      CJ Roberts a result of a conservative Leftist.

  2. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    If the Dems win and stack SCOTUS, then all of this is moot.

    Vote.

    1. avatar Cale15 says:

      Voting is moot because neither side gives a shit about gun rights! And if you think Trump does you’re a freaking idiot

      1. avatar Peter Gunn says:

        I joined a party with a platform I could fully embrace- eschewing the prerequisite rationalization, justification, obfuscation or outright denial required by the other parties (both).

        Here’s an exceedingly relevant plank in our platform:

        “1.9 Self-Defense

        The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.”

        Unapologetically clear, concise, and to the point. And, there is a candidate representing this party on the ballot in the upcoming 2020 Presidential election. There IS choice. Vote for whomever you want.

    2. avatar Warlocc says:

      Yeah, ’cause that’s clearly worked so well so far.

  3. avatar Biatec says:

    Common use is terrible. They can justify banning all future weapons and things that are already banned or heavily restricted are not in common use.

    1. avatar Old2AFart says:

      Guess I didn’t get the updated version of the Second Amendment. My copy must be the original cut version. Doesn’t contain any stipulations or restrictions regarding:
      –Need;
      –Suitable for sporting purposes;
      –In common use;
      –No full automatic operation;
      –Scary black color
      –Applicable to collective use only;
      –For me, not thee clause;
      –Stops where your touchy feelys begin;
      –Maximum purchases per month;
      –Limited to “x” number of cartridges;
      –Minimum barrel or overall length required;
      –No bump stocks;
      –No pistol grips;
      –No forward vertical grips;
      –No bayonet lugs;
      –No suppressors;
      –No collapsible stocks;
      –Maximum caliber;
      –Minimum number of USA made parts;
      It only says “…..shall not be infringed.”
      I’ll keep my original cut version.
      Would someone please forward this version to those black PJ wearing pampas asses.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        Exactly.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I guess our current SCOTUS doesn’t approve of its predecessors’ past decisions:

        If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
        –U.S. Supreme Court. [Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

        Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
        –U.S. Supreme Court, [Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491, (1966).]

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Common use is terrible. They can justify banning all future weapons and things that are already banned or heavily restricted are not in common use.”

      Now you see the beauty of circular reasoning. It is useful for all sorts of policy and judicial purposes.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      The fundamental question is what criteria, if any, tend to clarify the founding generation’s intent?

      Is there a SINGULAR purpose? E.g., is it individual self-defense? Or, the security of the free state? If one embraces this “singular purpose” view then it follows that the choice of individual self-defense would tend to support the handgun and discount the AR-15 style weapon. Conversely, if it were the militia clause, the reverse inference could reasonably be drawn.

      In the minds of the founding – ratifying – generation, is it MORE likely that the purposes were PLURAL? E.g., individual self-defense AND the security of the free state were BOTH held clearly in mind simultaneously? Might they have been construed to be complementary and not the least in conflict? Might the pursuit of happiness through marksmanship practice likewise been considered not-in-conflict and complementary to the first two mentioned. To the extent that an arm tended to serve more purposes its merit for 2A protection would be strengthened.

      Rather than try to EXCLUDE any legitimate purpose, ought we not try to FIND MULTIPLE law-abiding purposes that the founding generation might have contemplated? If an arm seems to be suitable for any one purpose it would deserve some protection. More purposes, more protection.

      If an arm seems to be UNsuited to ANY of such several purposes then it would seem to be less deserving of protection and more vulnerable to regulation.

      To illustrate, contemplate the garrote. It is highly suited for Thugs to attack innocent sleeping or inattentive victims so they may be silently robbed. Usefulness in protecting the security of a free state seems somewhat limited. Usefulness in self-defense seems limited. Common use seems limited. If so, perhaps the garrote could be (Constitutionally) licensed to cheese cutters if configured for that purpose. Otherwise, a garrote-like device might be regulated to the extent that its presence outside the home or shop raises a rebuttable presumption of intent to use for an unlawful purpose.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        The purpose of the 2A is so that civilians can be as armed as any government in the world. Anything less is twisting it.

        The original intent was the citizenry would defend the country not a standing army. It Would also keep the government from forming into a tyranny because people could stop it.

        I agree there is multiple reasons for it. How ever the most important right is self preservation and the right to exist. You can not have that level of protection without being able to form militias of the scale of a modern fighting force.

        my arguments do not just come from whether it’s the intent of the founders or what the constitution says.

        I believe in freedom. If you are not hurting someone it shouldn’t be a crime. if you are not stealing, being violent toward innocent people or damaging someones property you should have no restrictions of any kind on what you are doing. A crime needs a victim or else it’s just tyranny.

        Our arguments can’t just be about what the Constitution says or what our founders believed. We need to make arguments based on principals. Part of the reason things have become so bad is neither side has any moral compass or principals.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          “I’m a father. I don’t have then luxury of principles.” ….. then Mel Gibson kills all the Redcoats with a hatchet and Makes America Great (MAG).

  4. avatar Dude says:

    Repost from another article. It seems more appropriate here:

    The Left wing Supreme Court (including Roberts) just ruled that an Executive Order can’t rescind an Executive Order. Well, an E.O. can’t remove the ones they like anyway. This sounds like yet another dangerous precedent. Who’s really in charge in this country, anyway?

    “The court, in a 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the administration acted arbitrarily when it moved to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, failing to offer an adequate explanation for doing so.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-blocks-trump-cancellation-of-daca-immigration-program-11592489280

    1. avatar LKB says:

      I just read that opinion and Thomas’ dissent. Roberts has become so spineless that one wonders how he can sit up. If there was any doubt that he is a sniveling coward, they have now been dispelled.

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        With Roberts, I just want results. I don’t care, heart attack, stroke, cat AIDS of the ‘taint’, whatever it takes to just get him out of the way.

        Then we can worrying about Alito turning yellow on us.

        EDIT – I really wanna see the Leftists attack Diane Sykes or the Mormon woman judge during the confirmation hearings. Show the Leftists for the true scum they are…

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Remember, the Constitution is still the law for all 50 states. The so called Supreme court gives ” opinions “. These are not laws, they are opinions only.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The so called Supreme court gives ” opinions “. These are not laws, they are opinions only.”

        And?????

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          I think he’s petitioning Trump to make a power play and ignore the Supreme Court, forcing a civil war between the branches of government thus edifying a Constitutional crisis that would force the legislature to take sides and fracture our governmental system….. Eureka!!!! I THINK I HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT!!! Robert’s is the Grand Dragon Wizard of ANTIFA and thus the Anarchist In Chief!!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Eureka!!!! I THINK I HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT!!! Robert’s is the Grand Dragon Wizard of ANTIFA and thus the Anarchist In Chief!!”

          You may be onto something with that.

      2. avatar 9x39 says:

        What I replied to you the other day, which you apparently missed.

        From: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-supreme-court-denies-cert-in-all-pending-second-amendment-cases/

        “The Supreme Court is also capable of vacating those laws deemed non-legal &/or Unconstitutional. Yet in many cases, they have failed to act.”

        Still remains true, and inaction on their part is a direct betrayal of their duties. Those responsible should be removed from their posts.

  5. avatar ironhead says:

    Thank you to Thomas and Kavanaugh. Your dissent was really fucking helpful you fucking cowards

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      So you’re seriously cursing out our best supporters?

      1. avatar ironhead says:

        Been real fucking supportive havent they? Let’s moot the new york case, and per kavanaughs own words” let’s move on to these other cases asap”. And then not grant cert to all 10 of them. Yeah real supportive. Like a broken crutch.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “And then not grant cert to all 10 of them. Yeah real supportive.”

          You don’t vote for Cert. unless you *know* you have all 5 votes locked up tight, moron…

    2. avatar Jp says:

      When the fuck did hesay they voted on it you dumb piece of shit?

  6. avatar Old Region Fan says:

    Its really moot anyway, don’t you think, What’s coming is coming.

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      It really is. Most are firmly wedged in denial. But then, they have been since our great, and some cases, our great, great grandfathers day. Reality eludes, frequently.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        Well stated gentlemen.

  7. avatar Rusty - time for RGB to go - Chains says:

    It isn’t entirely fair to blame Bush for Roberts. It s hardly the fault of Bush that Roberts has gotten less and less reliable as a conservative Justice, though it is sad to see that Bush is turning into a Democrat in his dotage. It wouldn’t surprise me to see him marching with Mitt the Coward at the next BLM march.

    Utah, I blame you for sending Mitt Romney the Coward to the Senate. Just because he is Mormon doesn’t mean he is worthy of your trust and support, you have until 2024, unless you can actually pass a law to allow a recall.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Have you noticed how the Never Trump republicans were Bush allies? Look at these Never Trump “real” republicans now, some have gone full democrat. You never go full democrat.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        I’ve noticed. And about blaming Bush. I have two words for you, PATRIOT ACT. Fuck Bush, that neocon piece of shit can rot in hell. Fuck everything he did, INCLUDING this RINO plant turd Roberts.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          A little on the harsh side, but accurate.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          W. is undoubtedly the worst president this country has seen since Franklin Pierce. No, actually, far worse. Pierce was merely unable to solve the preexisting problems that caused the Civil War; Bush actively made everything worse.

          Bush, with the chance to lead in a national crisis, signed a death warrant for freedom and pitched us into a Middle East misadventure that’s been 20 years and counting, with no end in sight. Whether they were evil acts or just stupid and short-sighted, the effect is the same. Like you said, that guy can rot in hell.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “pitched us into a Middle East misadventure that’s been 20 years and counting, with no end in sight”

          Well at last you’re coming around and seeing the light.

          So the liberals were right about the Iraq war, thank you for finally admitting the truth.

          Too bad it’s 20 years, $3 trillion and 4000 lives too late.

        4. avatar Ing says:

          “At last…”? I saw the light on that 20 years ago. And “we liberals” — I considered myself one at the time — have NO excuse for patting ourselves on the back. Sure, George W. Bush, a so-called conservative, started it. And it got worse with so-called liberals in control, not better.

          You want to know what the essence of 21st century “liberalism” is? Saint Obama taking the Pandora’s Box of surveillance and subversion that W. created and weaponizing it against the American people, while mainstream liberals cheer him on and dunk on everyone who doesn’t support the magical black man.

          The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

          As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t vote for Republicans because I think they’re wonderful. I vote Republican (when I do vote) because Theoden under Wormtongue’s spell is better than Saruman of Isengard.

  8. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    I suspect that Roberts thinks he is saving the country from civil war by giving the left wins in these cases. It looks like he has a hero complex rather than deference to the constitution. Unfortunately, the Republicans also have a candidate that cares more about his ego than he does political victory. Trump seems to be doing everything he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If he effs this election up with his personal insults, constant claims of huge greatness, and picking dumb fights we may be finding ourselves living in a Marxist country pretty damned soon.

    1. avatar Chichi Montezuma says:

      I think it’s more being chief has made history’s view of his court his priority rather than the law, any allegiances or any sense of morality. He’s not being blackmailed or bought like some love to believe, he’s just clearly choosing no decision or those in the middle of the road. He wants to be viewed as Obama always loved to view himself, as some masterful magnanimous middle ground personality.
      I’m not sure people realize the courts never had as much power as they do now.

      Trump is a wildcard. When you ride chaos into power you can’t expect things to go according to plan. No real way to tell how this will go down election wise.

  9. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Interesting…from 2010
    https://www.nature.com/articles/463608a

    Seems like we have arrived…

    1. avatar Ing says:

      And so we have. I think I need to consult with my parents about their experience in the previous wave, what with history repeating itself and all.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      I think the issue here is one of misdiagnosis.

      And we should not expand our system of higher education beyond the ability of the economy to absorb university graduates.”

      That’s the crux of the problem. That sentence. It’s bullshit.

      The problem isn’t the number of university graduates. It’s the number of people exiting high school who can’t survive in an actual university setting without being coddled, particularly on the mathematics front of things. IOW, we’re producing people who have a degree in something essentially useless and in ’07/’08 the paradigm shifted. Prior to the financial crisis a university degree was essentially a more advanced version of a high school job in fast food. They showed basic capability to show up on time, apply oneself and learn. Most companies were going to train you to do something anyway, so the degree was the key to their assessment of if they could properly train you.

      That changed when cutbacks became necessary. All of a sudden the question was not “Can you learn this job?” but “Do you already have the skills so that we generally don’t have to spend capital on training you?”.

      Now, consider the way we hand out visas to foreigners. Many companies beg for this because they literally cannot find people in this country with the specific skill sets they need (yes, this system is abused but that’s another topic).

      In my observation the root cause of this is as follows: The country really doesn’t need more plumbers, electricians, handymen, construction workers etc. It needs people with science and technology based skills. Those skills all have a foundation in math which is, and has consistently been, a place where K-12 education has fallen on it’s face in the past 30 years. And the faceplant is getting worse. Mathematics education is in a decline in K-12.

      The result is a ton of incoming freshman to the university system who rapidly discover that they cannot get the degrees they thought they could without remedial math education. However, that takes time, a couple semesters in most cases at the minimum. That’s taking a four year degree and making it a five year venture, one which most students cannot afford.

      The result is that they switch over to a major where they only need the minimum math requirement. Usually this is a single class which is listed as College Algebra at most schools. However, many institutions break this up. There are essentially two sets of classes. One for science majors, designed to prepare the students to take Trigonometry, Calculus etc and another often listed as “College Algebra for non-science majors” which could honestly be referred to as “Algebra Light”.

      The people who take Algebra Light, historically, were people getting degrees things like History or English. However, those departments are over-full and as a society we don’t really need more History, English or Anthropology majors. The result has been the creation of new departments. At my Alma Mater they were things like “Afro-Caribbean Literature” or “Cultural Geography”.

      Now, there’s nothing wrong with a sub-department of English that deals with Afro-Caribbean Lit, but as it’s own department it’s a damned esoteric thing. And what do you do with that degree? Well, not much unless you want to get a PhD in it and then… teach Afro-Caribbean Lit. But how many spots are there nationwide for Cultural Geographers or Afro-Caribbean Lit specialists? Not many.

      The disease, IMHO, is a failure in K-12 to prepare people for the “new economy” which is heavily reliant on MATH. That failure pushes college students into a system that offers dead-end degrees. Those dead-end degrees are… dead ends. Yet, high end companies are always looking for, and often cannot find, engineers, chemists, microbiologists, serious computer folks of various stripes etc etc.

      The employment problems are a symptom of a shitty preparatory educational system. People simply don’t have the math background to take advantage of the university system. The result is a TON of people who are essentially unemployable while employers in high-end areas struggle to find suitable candidates to fill positions and end up looking overseas.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        I don’t disagree with your assessment. When I entered private school I had to go back and take math courses that public school didn’t require. This helped me tremendously later when I entered college. Fast forward couple of decades and my nephews and nieces, except one, have degrees that are basically a very expensive piece of paper. Of no use in the world they live in.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        I think your argument actually supports that assertion — you’ve articulated the reason why our economy can’t absorb all these college graduates credentialed idiots. It almost certainly isn’t the one the author was thinking of, but still…

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          The problem is that the author just wasn’t thinking. They want to treat the symptom, not the cause. But that leads to the question of “OK, what do we do with these people then?”. As I said, we don’t need more menial jobs to be filled. That assertion is a mistake or a lie depending on who you talk to.

          It was stated here in the recent past that there are “welding internships” for $75k/year. That’s simply not true. I don’t know where this idea came from but it’s bullshit. This is the kind of nonsense that needs to fucking stop because continuing the nonsense will never solve the problem. At best it’s bandaids on a gaping wound.

          The problem needs to be correctly assessed before the proper treatment can be applied.

          And there are a fuckload of jobs for people that know enough math. Shit, when my wife was getting done with grad school she had companies and government labs fighting over her before she even had her degree in hand.

          Looking in my area at engineering positions, just Raytheon, Ball and Lockheed, just those three companies are trying to hire hundreds of engineers. Got a BS in engineering and you can pass an SSBI? Six figures right out of school. English major? Not so much.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A college/university degree today isn’t representative of education, but advanced trade school. Accounting, music, medicine, engineering, math, computers, physics, business, even “general studies” (and other made-up categories). Looking back at the classical education, the organization was about learning to think and reason with abstract concepts, history, ideology, philosophy. Yes, actual arts were included as a means to round out education.

          I remember a book, or long short story about a future where two specialties were at the top of the knowledge chain: mechanics and technicians. The mechanics knew how to make things, but couldn’t design or maintain them. The technicians knew how to run and maintain things, but had no clue how to design and build things. Neither had the education to contemplate, grasp and articulate how society should grow, and how “things” impact humans and thought. Essentially it was an amoral culture.

          Of all the lines of study (mastering trades) in advanced trade school, math is the most near education, in that math does teach the brain (student/apprentice?) to order things logically, and discipline thinking (well….except for the new idea that accurate answers are irrelevant so long as you have a coherent explanation for your method of being in error).

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam:

          There are a number of simultaneous problems here. I’ve noted before that Boomers and Millennials don’t really seem to understand that they’re both getting fucked by the same thing and should be allies. That thing is inflation.

          However there’s also been an enormous “inflation” in education as well. Who needs to know more, an engineer today or one in 1950?

          The world has gotten more complicated and the keys to success are no longer in algebra, they’re in calculus. That’s a serious problem for us because our educational system was designed from the ground up to create factory workers. Realistically not much has changed in K-12 since 1900, yet the world has moved on a fair distance.

          I would also note that one of these days people are going to realize who it is that really is creating the problems. Not senators or Presidents. Not SCOTUS judges. Not Jeff Bezos or Zucker or Zuckerberg. When people actually realize who and what is being turned against them it’s gonna get real interesting real fuckin’ quick. And the sad thing is that the people who are going to get eaten alive don’t likely realize what they’re doing.

          And if you want to know who it is that I’m referring to answer the question implicit in my first paragraph here: If everyone’s getting screwed by various types of inflation, who’s benefiting from that?

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Two things:
          1. As regards the growth in required knowledge of current engineers, it is still skill training for a trade, not education. No argument that today’s engineering environment is far more complex than in 1960. Of course, it was more complex in 1960 than in 1940.

          2. As regards the inflation you mentioned, it does eventually demand silliness. While on active duty, I could find no operational need for an advanced degree (heck, I managed to complete pilot training with a BA in Political Science – an oxymoron if ever). Indeed, at the time I had more respect for education than to pursue an advanced degree for the sake of a certificate (inflation made any advanced degree, in any category, a primary qualification for promotion). I did get the degree(s), but my reluctance cost me.

          After retiring, I “discovered” that in civilian employment, degrees were regarded with no more reverence than in the military. A degree was the lazy-man’s tool to make hiring choices easier, and riskless. Then, of curse, the demand for degrees eventually made degrees useless in civilian hiring decisions, and specific, technical certifications became the next line of lazy discriminators.

          An interesting (to me) irony is that my three sons all took BA degrees in soft subjects, yet all three successfully advanced in highly technical fields in computer sciences…without advanced degrees. Musta got that from their mother.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          I’m gonna cover a few things here. (Apologies in advance for the length.)

          While I agree that the “degree in and of itself” is essentially pointless it is, nonetheless, the gatekeeper. I would also agree that whether it’s called “education”, “instruction”, “practical” or whatever doesn’t much matter, what matters is if someone can do the job and it’s unfortunate that so many people who can are never given the chance because they don’t have the right slip of paper saying that they should at least be given a shot.

          However, realistically it doesn’t matter much at this point when it comes to good job because the truth is that most people can’t do those things in the modern world. I would tend to agree that many “high level” jobs could be taught without “formal education” via an internship/apprentice type program but… again reality. No one tries to do this and everyone demands a “credential”. But, can people measure up to the decent jobs? In reality probably not.

          Example: There’s no limit to the number of “math memes” on the internet due to a simple fact: most people, regardless of age, cannot do basic arithmetic, never mind algebra or something more complicated. It’s a common thing on social media but studies on the subject indicate that the “average” person of ANY age group generally can’t solve 6/2 * (1+2), or some similar variant of the question, correctly. Boomer, Milllennial, Xer, Zoomer, doesn’t matter. PEMDAS is apparently not common knowledge. That’s fucking pathetic but it’s true nonetheless. Dividing complex fractions that contain exponents? For-fucking-get about it.

          Now, how often do we do that? Well it depends on what you do. But the fact that you can understand what amounts to basic math is quite suggestive of an ability to grasp and manipulate complex ideas in, say, biochemistry or engineering. However, I will point out that I tutor kids on this kind of thing and it’s amazing to me the number of parents and grandparents who think it’s some kind of magic. They were never taught this very well either (if at all) because like I said, our school system was designed in the 1880-1900 era and has never moved forward from that to catch up to the reality of the economy. This is exactly why rich people use private schools which have “moved with the times” (which is hilarious since really, they went backwards but that’s another story).

          Regardless of how you cut it, math is essentially the key to the kingdom at this point and K-12 doesn’t teach it because it’s based on the 1900 notion of cranking out factory workers for factories that no longer exist. The people who profit from this are what I refer to as “middle management”. They’re the people who run unions, for example. They profit enormously from this kind of thing. Teachers unions, the AFL-CIO etc. They also exist in government, Lois Lerner for example. Private or public these people are the “deep state” in the classic sense of the term. They may not make “the big bucks” but they control the destiny of millions and they’re vindictive about it because they only care about increasing the power of whatever it is that they control.

          While they may only make a six figures a year they have real power and that’s what they love more than anything. I mean, why do you think that the math teacher at a high school drives a 15 year old Volvo while the dipshit administrator that can’t balance their own checkbook has an Audi? Competence isn’t the answer here.

          And again, it all goes back to inflation, and this is why generational warfare drives me fucking bonkers.

          Consider:

          Your average Boomer has $171,000 in retirement savings. Sorry to say but that’s not shit. It’s poor, literally. They think it’s real money because people tend to get stuck thinking about things at a certain time of life, many of them seem to do the calculation in ~1970’s dollars and think $171,000 is big, big money. But in reality it’s $24,500.37 in 1970’s bucks. That’s 13.2x the poverty level in 1970. But life expectancy is now up too, as is the cost of later in life medical care because 1) innovation is expensive and 2) inflation.

          IOW if they retire on that money and divide it evenly across their remaining life expectancy they’re just below the poverty line. ($171,000/13.54 = $12,629.25 and the poverty line is $12,954) But they’ll say “I’ve got money” because for most of their life $171K WAS real money. It’s not today, so no, you have nonsense on paper. Younger people get the same thing but they get the cost up front which has led to them demanding a much starting higher salary which Boomers have often replied to with “You’re greedy and don’t get how the world works!”. Yet they fail to recognize that, fuck 1970, in 1995 the average student debt on a four year degree was $10,000 and now it’s $38,000.

          Have entry level salaries jumped 380%? Nope, they’re up 22.15% (see below). And on top of that the average cost of everything has jumped 72.57% since 1995. Rent, food, utilities insurance costs. Everything. Yet the average entry level salary has jumped about a $1500/year. In 1995 it was $29,276. Today it’s $30,768 with the highest average for any state being NY at $35,750. So average starting salary is up 22.15% in that time frame, outpaced 3.27x by inflation and that person starts out with 3.8 times the debt. In fact, if we compare this to 1970, adjusted salaries are now 16% lower after inflation than they were in 1970 and only slightly higher than they were in 1995 which was actually the low point of the entire 1960-present time frame.

          So again, two groups of people who should be righteously angry about this and on the same side. Boomers got boned on their retirement while Zoomers and Millennials got fucked up front. But these groups of people shit on each other instead of realizing they’re actually on the same side, teaming up and putting the proper heads on the proper pikes.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          As a Boomer, I remember riding my bike to the local store (not big box, chain brand) and bringing home the proverbial loaf of bread and half-gallon of milk, with change from my dollar. You don’t think I see prices as outrageous? I left college with $600 student debt (state university). You don’t think I am not outraged at the price of college today? Or that I am not outraged that big name universities with multi-billion dollar endowments refused to cut students a financial break when beer virus stopped live classes? Or that online programs from prestigious universities cost the same as being on station?

          Yes, I think of prices in terms of percentage of income in 1970, and realize that “inflation” isn’t static as a percentage of income. My offspring didn’t like me telling them that time marches on, and they cannot act as if there is no end to the need to build for the future. They are now in catch-up mode, grousing about how my generation has all the wealth, and won’t share. Somehow, they slept through all the years their parents did not have six-figure jobs (ever), and we had to be financially prudent. At least they see that paying people to stay home and cash welfare checks is not the road to prosperity for them, or the nation.

          Boomers who stuck their heads in the sand regarding their retirement have no sympathy from me. Especially the dozens I showed the need to have investments/savings that, with a 5% withdrawal rate, would replicate their annual take home pay for life. None of them took me serious, and found their retirement to be less than they imagined. They also believed their $50k, company life insurance would set up their survivors for life.

          But it isn’t just the Millennials and Boomers who can’t put off instant gratification. It is every generation since WW2. The instigation of such foolishness began with “the Greatest Generation”, after 1945, the war cry of whom was, “My kid ain’t gonna have it as tough as I did !!”. The Greatest ripped the backbone out of society, and established the notion that hardship and hard work was to be avoided at all costs.

  10. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    So, according to the Supreme Court, it looks like Obama didn’t need to go through any administrative justification for his illegal DACA executive order, but Trump needed to administratively justify his executive order to nullify Obama’s.

    Trump should use the same strategy. Use an executive order to restore the original text and meaning of the Second Amendment. Under the precedent above, it wouldn’t even be illegal, then let the courts fight it out.

    Bring this B.S. to a head once and for all.

    1. avatar Chichi Montezuma says:

      You’re assuming Trump wants to restore the Second. I think Jr. is much more on our side than Dad.
      Pretty sure no matter how Trump uses legislation or EO as a means to stop illegal immigration all the courts would counter him. Illegal immigration has paid billions and billions in profits to corporate America and the elite. It’s the source of wage stagnation and wealth inequality, which translates to political inequality in a nation where money is speech. No way the black robes represent the people on this issue.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        The Chief’s observation has merit:

        “Illegal immigration has paid billions and billions in profits to corporate America and the elite. It’s the source of wage stagnation and wealth inequality, which translates to political inequality in a nation where money is speech.”

        Add a fake war in the Middle East to increase military industrial complex corporate profit and a tax cut for the wealthy.

  11. avatar arc says:

    The SCOTUS is a total joke, an inept body that can’t save anything. Once this is understood, all becomes clear.

  12. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

    This session has been a win for me since I knew they werent going to expand gun rights but wanted them to expand LGBT civil rights.

    Go ahead and get all righteous with me. It’s justlike how, flying 2A rhetoric notwithstanding, you all would vote R even if they pushed a new AWB, because identity and because you want their nominal policy on abortion, immigration, christian theocracy etc. Just like that but more dignified, because I got a lefty policy win from a righty court and you can’t get what you want from your own side.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      What enumerated ‘Rights’ under the Constitution did they not have before, but now SCOTUS has decided they are protected class of people?

      1. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

        You know what the ruling was, or at least have access to it. It happened, I don’t have to explain it to you, take your L, enjoy the wrong side of history.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          Screw history. I care about my lifetime and the world I give my kids. You idiots can gerrymander history all you want. Reality has a nasty habbit of slapping people like you in the face.

          Speaking of which…. Where is the TTAG article about the 700 armed Ohio residents that shut down a BLM protest in their town? Keep that crap in the Blue (D) cities. The sad legacy of George Floyd will be burning cities, urban blight, and lawlessness. You and your friends certainly are writing an odd history.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          I assume you’re speaking of Bethel, Ohio?

          Thoroughly covered by the MSM.

          The Guardian
          The Hill
          WaPo
          MSN

          Interesting, the local coverage seems to report that the peaceful BLM protesters were met with violence by right wing groups, including biker gangs:

          InsiderViolent counter-protesters mob Ohio BLM action, spread antifa rumors

          YouTube › watchBethel Police Chief, Mayor condemn violence after counter-protesters tout …

          https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3207842001

          The Clermont Sun’Motorcycle gangs’ incite violence at Bethel Black Lives Matter demonstration

          Cincinnati.com › 2020/06/16Police: Protester to seek charges after being struck in Bethel during protests

          Fox19 › 2020/06/15 › heated-c…Bethel curfew in place as second day of protests produces 5 arrests – Fox19

      2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        SCOTUS can give their opinion all they want, but they have no enforcement power and as far as the Wrong side of History, SCOTUS has been there and got a bunch of T-shirts.

        What makes this different?

        Which is why I asked.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      “Your own side…”

      I don’t know about anybody else here, but I’ve been going the Treebeard route for quite a while: I’m on nobody’s side, because nobody is on MY side.

      When I do vote, I vote for Republicans because there are only two available choices, and Theoden under Wormtongue’s spell is preferable to Isengard.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        And there we are. Precisely where I’ve been for decades.

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      Straight people just got placed after homosexuals and the crew that wants to be other than what they born. Which means that group may not get hired but we’ll see if they get hired in the first place.

      Best to stay in that closet until you are sure you got a job.

    4. avatar John T says:

      So you have taken to this website to crow? About what? A decision that no one actually cares about on this board. A decision that has no impact on daily lives?
      The right to defend yourself is the 2nd right we were given by the constitution, the 1st being free speech. which is reason you can post on this board about a topic no-one gives a rats ass about, but you it seems.

  13. avatar Shire-man says:

    Was going to suggest widespread looting, assaults and arson but those are crimes when we do it not protected first amendment bravery like when they do it.

  14. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Something somewhat related. Remember the shooting in Albuquerque over the Onate statue? Well, the Santa Fe New Mexican is pushing the governor to go after both the open and concealed carry statutes as a result of the shooting and the presence of an “armed militia.”

    This is EXACTLY what I said would happen. Firearms and protests don’t mix, especially over statues. Now that violence has occurred, a nullification of our rights is in the works.

    Good job, tacticool goobers! You’ve f*ked yourselves, and the rest of us, with your LARPing. I hope you’re happy!

    https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/editorials/the-state-must-act-on-police-reform-militia-threat/article_d854d806-b0c5-11ea-9c00-377a0c798d07.html

    And many of you were crowing that “gun control was dead for a generation.” Good luck with that.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      One of the problems with freedom is that people are free to be stupid. Is your solution to curtail freedom with force in order to make us more likely to stay free? You seem to be bitching about a hard reality that you/we can’t change.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Shouldn’t you maybe save some anger for the progtardian newspaper, the barbarians they’re covering for, or maybe the evil politicians who want to nullify American civil rights?

    3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Maybe the rioters shouldn’t have cart blanch form the local and state government to violate individual and property rights. If that was the case, you wouldn’t have militia groups springing up as a counter force.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        *from

    4. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      You’re a coward and a fraud. You’re lucky my first post got deleted, because it was about a paragraph explaining how much you are. I despise people like you, you’re the reason we’re losing our rights chunk by chunk.

    5. avatar The Only Good Commie Is A Dead Commie says:

      The only mistake there was not shooting ALL the rioters. riots are the perfect place for a gun and maybe we would have a lot fewer riots if people showed up and put a serious stop to a few of them.

    6. avatar strych9 says:

      Your worried about the New Mexican?

      ROFLMAO. It’s a proggy paper in a city referred to as “The San Francisco of the High Desert”. This is par for the course with that paper. I wrote a op-ed for them in 2009 and people threatened to burn my parents house down over it.

      There is currently a special legislative session, it started on the 18th. Legislators hope to have this session done by this weekend because New Mexico doesn’t have a professional legislature and those people all have to get back to work.

      Within this session the governor is going to attempt to file four (IIRC) bills to go into this but in all likelihood none will be considered. Note I say “attempt” because with this session all she can do is request that they consider them. The likelihood is very strong that the legislature doesn’t even bother with them.

      See, New Mexico has trouble passing budgets in regular years and now they need to cut $1.7-$2.8 billion out of the last budget they did due to a downturn in oil revenue thanks to the CoV-2 lockdowns. If history is any guide that’s going to be basically all they talk about because it usually takes up the lions share of the “long years” and they don’t have that kind of time right now. Of the other four bills the Governor promises to ask them to consider, two are revenue/spending related and one is about mail-in ballots. All will be divisive to the point that they almost certainly won’t pass and as I said, those bills being considered would be a surprise.

      The chances that they add a fifth item, one that would be WILDLY unpopular in New Mexico, even in Northern New Mexico is a joke, especially if it’s been suggested by the SFNM’s editorial board which is basically a joke outside the City.

      The editorial board in question represents the views of the people who live, essentially, exclusively in Downtown Santa Fe and are rich as fuck. They’re uber progressive artists. These are the people who hated cops right up until there was a serial rapist running around and then suddenly it was “Where the fuck are the cops!?”. The legislature has to worry about the rest of the State which vastly outnumbers Santa Feans.

      If you want to worry about this passing, where it might have a snowballs chance in Hell, that would be the 2021 regular session. That session starts February 18 of 2021 and lasts for 50 days. Usually they struggle to pass a budget in that timeframe and this upcoming year doesn’t promise to be much different, actually worse if the economy doesn’t come roaring back.

      You’re freaking out about something that will almost certainly be forgotten. Heck, no one can even prefile legislation for the next regular session until February 4, 2021, more than six months from now, and as I said, the idea that this gets tacked onto the Special Session is basically laughable. I mean, unless all the Democrats have suddenly decided that losing their majorities in the House and Senate is a good idea.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Oh, and I forgot something kinda big.

        To do what the Editorial Board wants you’d also have to alter the New Mexico Constitution. Specifically, Art II, Sec 6, which is New Mexico’s version of the 2A.

        Yes, an act of the legislature by itself could get rid of CCW since that’s not permitted in the NM Constitution, but what they really want is to get rid of OC which is specifically protected by Art II, Sec 6.

  15. avatar Jeff says:

    I have a new theory here. Everyone assumes Roberts has gone to the other side, but maybe that’s not true.

    Twice the court has ruled and those rulings are being ignored. Ruling again could discredit the court in a major way if they don’t have a good plan for enforcing the ruling.

    The supreme court doesn’t have an army — it’s basically a very strong nudge. If the second and ninth circuits are too stubborn, the nudge won’t be enough.

    In other words, Roberts is the one in the way, but maybe he’s worried about the lower court landscape first.

    1. avatar GratiaEtVeritas says:

      There may be something to this, but it may be wishful thinking on my part. Here is my reasoning:

      The Amicus Brief by GOA raised some interesting points:
      A. The Ninth Circuit Distorted the Fourth Amendment to Provide Reduced Protection for Owners of Firearms.
      B. The Exercise of Second Amendment Rights Does Not Constitute a Forfeiture of Other Constitutional Rights.
      C. This Court Should Resolve a Circuit Split that the Exercise of Second Amendment Rights Diminishes Fourth Amendment Rights.

      The thrust of the Amicus brief seems to be that the activism on the 9th circuit on the 2A has become so egregious that it is impacting the 4th amendment.

      Later on in the brief:

      “Lastly, if allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit ruling would make it seemingly impossible for a married woman to defend against state violations of her Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms,” without being subjected to forcible confiscation and retention of her firearms by the state should her husband become a “disqualified person.” Indeed, in this case, the Ninth Circuit has sub silentio adopted this anti-woman policy despite Petitioner’s full compliance with California Penal Code § 25135, which, as the Petition explains, requires “that firearms be secured in an approved gun safe when a lawful gun owner lives with another person who is prohibited from possessing, receiving or purchasing a firearm.” ”

      It seems that the left wing of the court seems to be “defenders” of the 4th amendment. The argument seems to be, that the court must step in and grant review lest other “favored”rights be impacted by the 9th circuit in their hoplophobic crusade. Because there is a lack of standard of review in 2A cases, lower courts have been granted an excessive amount of latitude and could allow for Roberts to finally be forced to step in. I’m sure an opinion if the cases is granted cert, will be narrowly tailored, but it seems that because the 4th and 2nd are tied together Roberts may think “Well, maybe I can redeem the reputation of the court by getting both wings to “compromise” “.

      Maybe I’m too optimistic and perhaps the court has really wimped out on the 2A in which the only remedy is another justice.

    2. avatar Kendahl says:

      Roberts has another worry. In the 1930s, it looked like the Supreme Court was about to rule against some of FDR’s programs. He threatened to expand the Court and pack the new positions with stooges who would rubber stamp anything he wanted. The Democrats have made the same threat recently. The Court folded back then and is doing the same now.

      We are witnessing a breakdown in the structure of the American judicial system. Circuit courts are ignoring the Supreme Court. Will district courts begin ignoring circuit courts? We have immigration and firearms “sanctuaries” in which lower levels of government refuse to cooperate with higher levels. After riots and looting in Phoenix, the governor imposed a statewide night time curfew. Several small cities, that had not experienced disorder, announced that they would not enforce the curfew except against troublemakers caught in the act.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    We’re effed regardless…dim/leftard’s rarely go right. Quite the history of so-called “conservative’s” going left(Earl Warren? Roberts?,Cavanaugh?,Gorsuch?!?). A civil war is coming.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      How else are we going to deal with this? It’s just a constant barrage of garbage coming our way. Every single channel you turn on, every single thing you read, every normie idiot you talk to, it’s just the same crap.

      When people like you and I see things like “These protests are mostly peaceful…” WITH A FUCKING BUILDING ON FIRE IN THE BACKGROUND, and that same propaganda gets repeated over and over and over again, and we see it all happening, it drives us insane. But then you look at Joe Schmoe, who is either too dumb or too apathetic or just too busy to care, it’s maddening.

      I feel like the boy at the end of The Boy who Cried Wolf, except this is my first time shouting and no one will listen.

  17. avatar Prndll says:

    The new first time gun owner needs to go through this with a very real understanding that guns a politics are linked. Being a liberal gun owner makes you part of the problem. Who you vote for matters. Otherwise, owning a gun is likely going to create problems and never actually do anything good for you.

    1. avatar John T says:

      When you own a gun you are no longer classified as LIBERAL. You are classified as an AMERICAN exercising his SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
      Pull your head out of the sand.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    I don’t know this for a fact, but I’ve heard that Roberts and Sotomayor have a thing. No, really. Ever since Roberts broke up with Ginsburg, he’s been all adrift.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Thanks for that mental image…..

      I need brain bleach now…on a Friday no less!

  19. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    CHAZ/CHOP has proven one thing,Eff the government,any form of government up to and to include SCROTUM.

  20. avatar BusyBeef says:

    Maybe they didn’t take up any cases (requires only 4 votes) because they knew they’d get a bad ruling (5-4) which would undo Heller and McDonald?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email