WaPo Editorial Board Begs the Supreme Court Not to Take Another Second Amendment Case

US Supreme Court Building

Bigstock

Last week — a holiday week — the Supreme Court relisted all ten Second Amendment cases that are awaiting cert decisions. As the term winds to a close, the Washington Post’s editorial board has taken a preemptive shot in the Court’s direction letting Justice Roberts them know that everything is just peachy in the world of Second Amendment jurisprudence (all evidence to the contrary) and that granting cert to another gun rights case would make D.C. opinion-makers…uncomfortable.

Since Heller,there has been virtually no disagreement among lower courts about how to apply these principles. Appeals courts have established a working consensus on how to evaluate gun measures, carefully following the Supreme Court’s guidance. When there is no disagreement among circuit courts, the Supreme Court typically declines to step in.

The court refused last month to consider a New York gun law that New York City repealed while it was being litigated, saying the case was moot. In dissent, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas said they would have taken the case and repudiated the law. Meanwhile, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh sided with the majority of the court that rejected the case, but insisted that the court should address the Second Amendment “soon,” suggesting at least four conservative justices are searching for a gun rights case on which to take a stand.

The fact that the Supreme Court is now more conservative than it was a decade ago is no reason to upend — once again — its Second Amendment directives. Such a naked power play would only imperil the court’s fragile credibility.

Washington Post editorial board in We don’t need another Supreme Court guns case

comments

  1. avatar WARFAB says:

    What actually imperil’s the court’s credibility is allowing lower courts to thumb their noses at prior decisions.

    1. avatar Just Sayin (OG) says:

      ^This.
      And, any court that over reaches and creates law, Courts are to define law, not establish it.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        + 1

      2. avatar lntn says:

        Clarify or interpret at best, not define.

        If the law’s definition is not clear enough then the court will rule it’s not enforceable and return it to the lawmakers. The court cannot define laws.

    2. avatar Napresto says:

      Not to mention caving every time democrats or the media (but I repeat myself) threaten the court’s “credibility” when they don’t get their way. The constitution is clearly written – rule on cases accordingly, and “credibility” won’t be an issue.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        +1.

        Why do you think the cries about the “credibility” of the court (and threats to legislatively “do something” about it) get more shrill whenever the Court might do something to kill one of the left’s sacred cows?

        The answer is that this tactic has worked for them before.

        From all appearances, Roberts succumbed to pressure from Obama and the media on the Obamacare decision (which looks to have initially been a 5-4 decision against it, with Kennedy writing the opinion, but Roberts wimped out and changed sides at the last minute). Like a bully who has found a kid who can be intimidated into meekly giving up his lunch money, they came back with the same tactics in NYSR&PA. And once again Roberts chickened out.

        Like the lunch money patsy, Roberts is going to have to learn that until you say no to the bully (and either take your lumps or dish out some of your own), you will never be free of him; indeed, his demands will simply get more and more strident. And a Chief Justice who can be so intimidated is a far greater threat to an independent judiciary than anything WAPO is worried about.

        1. avatar D.T.O.M. says:

          This is a moot conversation at the moment, as this discussion is now a skirmish as Dems have moved into a full frontal assault to steal the election. When they do they will pack this court and Heller and McDonald will be distant memories.

          The Dems have proven they will do anything to regain power and this upcoming election will tear this country apart. They have showed their hand in Nevada where they are flooding the state with ballots. The state has sent absentee ballot’s to every eligible voter and the ballots are being returned at ” an unprecedented rate”.

          In some counties, absentee ballots are hitting new heights not seen even in 2008, the state’s highest-turnout election, including the most absentee ballots returned by voters.

          Currently more voters have returned absentee ballots FOR THE PRIMARY than in the 2008 general election, and this is for every single county in the state.

          In Michigan’s meanwhile, the secretary of state (D) announced she has on Tuesday sent all of the state’s 7.7 million registered voters an application to vote by mail in the August and November elections, citing the coronavirus pandemic.

          It’s no surprise Pelosi had nationwide Mail-In-Voting in her $3 Trillion dollar spending bill.

  2. avatar Prndll says:

    Why should the supreme court belittle itself by giving a news paper business so much consideration? This is akin to the tail demanding the dog be wagged.

    1. avatar Void says:

      Who owns the news outlet and who do they donate to.

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Translation; the SCOTUS should just let the lower courts continue to ignore their ruling since they’re all doing it.

  4. avatar LandSnark says:

    [quote]
    …there has been virtually no disagreement among lower courts about how to apply these principles…
    [/quote]

    This is technically correct. (the best kind of correct)
    It’s just the unanimous consensus is to disregard precedent and step on your snake anyway.

    1. avatar that one guy says:

      Only so far as the cases that have reached those circuit courts who then rule unanimously against the SCOTUS directive…

      There are likely circuit courts that have not expressed their non-consensus official opinion through a ruling because the wrong verdict never made it out of the lowest courts in the first place.

    2. avatar Cthulhu2020 says:

      Sorry to interrupt. Just appreciated the Futurama reference.

    3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Obviously not unanimous, hence the need to invoke the weasel-word “virtually”.

  5. avatar HandyDan says:

    Since when does the Supreme Court have fragile credibility? Does that mean that we can just wantonly violate Roe v. Wade, like California, New York, New Jersey, and all the rest wantonly violate Heller?

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Not sure what you mean by “violate” Roe v. Wade. Nobody’s preventing anyone from choosing life for their baby. Please explain.

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        Violating Roe v Wade would involve protecting other people’s babies from death. An example of this could involve a state passing a law which clarified the fact that babies are people and that they were not to be killed.

        Pretty simple

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Roe v. Wade was tortured into a privacy argument, not allowing the government to get between patients and their physicians. Not a bad principle, but it (deliberately) missed the point in order to produce the result to which the Court was ideologically inclined. Regardless, Obamacare violated the hell out of that principle.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        I think what he means is state legislatures should be free to ban abortion just like states banned guns.

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

    Wow, they really are starting to shit bricks as the term draws to a close.

    Coolness.

    Lower the muzzles and fire at will, Thomas & Company… 😉

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      “Whites of their eyes”

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

    I’m looking at it this way – By declaring moot NY Pistol, they neutralized the naked threat those 3 senators made to the Court.

    Now, if they take 1 or more of the 10 pending, they will be daring them to pull that stunt again. What a wonderful opportunity to throw their asses in federal prison for daring to threaten a federal judge…

    *snicker* 🙂

    1. avatar Robert Messmer says:

      Quote: “What a wonderful opportunity to throw their asses in federal prison for daring to threaten a federal judge…” You mean exactly the way Senator Chuck Schumer threatened not one but two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name. I forget, what was the length of his prison term for threatening a federal official? Oh I remember now. No charges filed, not expelled from the Senate for violating senate rules, not even a motion of Censure.

      1. avatar Roger J says:

        It’s good to be a Democrat. You have unlimited privilege’s to violate the Constitution and law.

  8. avatar M1Lou says:

    More propagandists propagandizing. The second amendment has been ignored for the past 90 years with infringements piling up and the court systems do nothing to stop it. Many times they just rubber stamp any infringing law because of that compelling government interest garbage standard. The government says it’s a good law, so it must be a good law, right?

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      Pretty much.

  9. avatar KLS - T.A.S.G. says:

    “The Washington Post’s editorial board….” That’s Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen Bezos, along with Jeff P.J. Bezos, Jeffrey Jorgensen-Bezos and Jeff Bezos.

    “….upend….its Second Amendment directives.” Directive 1: “….the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Directive 2: If in any doubt whatsoever, see Directive 1.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Oh no baby, it’s going to be taken up by the court

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    While wapo may have influence over the mindless sheep in this country, it has NO influence with the SCOTUS…

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      It might with Roberts, unfortunately. I’d say WaPo influences the leftist Justices, but that would imply a false distinction within the hive mind.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Since Heller,there has been virtually no disagreement among lower courts about …

    How quaint: as long as the lower courts agree on a law, the law can stand.

    Thus, if a legislature passes a law which says that male police officers can immediately strip and cavity search any woman in any public location if she “looks nervous”, that law should stand as long as the lower courts agree with it. Got it.

    Once again, we see that Progressives elevate wide-scale agreement/consensus above all. In their worldview our inherent human dignity and rights only exist if broad agreement/consensus supports our dignity and rights. Scumbags.

  13. avatar enuf says:

    “…. several justices appear eager to eliminate even the small amount of leeway the court has left lawmakers to enact mild restrictions on deadly weapons.”

    Those last two words define the cognitive failure in all cases of Hoplophobia. There is no such thing as a “deadly weapon” without the human component being involved and taking action. Humans are the “deadly weapon”, not the inanimate objects they may wield.

    For this reason all efforts to legislate away the criminal use of weapons are doomed to failure, for they do not address the root cause.

    Which is HUMAN VIOLENCE, and always has been since the first cavemen picked up a stout branch to clobber another caveman.

    Unless of course there is proof the stout branch used the Jedi Mind Trick to make Caveman Aggressor 1 attack Caveman Victim 1?

  14. avatar Jp says:

    They had a case to stand on. And they rejected it cause why? NY changed a small part of it.. that was their shot to slap down all of the idiotic gun control laws that keep getting added practically on a daily basis.
    Kavanaugh sucked the liberal cock on that one.

    But now they have a list of 10 insignificant cases they want to move on to to throw gun owners a bone to remind us they are on our side????
    SCOTUS can suck a fat one.

    WAPO already got what they wanted.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Insignificant cases? Really? Sorry, I don’t think so. Go read a summary of the cases. Some deal directly with “to bear” and others deal with limitations on arms that can be born (e.g. ARs and such, or the California Roster/microstamping case).

      1. avatar Bobblehead Bob says:

        As a resident of the Peoples Republic of Massthetwoshits I can tell you that we have suffered at the hands of the left for many years. None of the 2nd amendment cases should be considered trivial.

    2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      I’m not as sure as you are that Kavanaugh backed down for the reasons you think. Actually I would submit that he gauged Roberts’ position and, rather than take a loss if the case was not mooted, he sided with Roberts with the agreement that Roberts would support another 2a case at a later date. The later date to occur after the election so that they will know which way the political winds are blowing.

      The moral of this story is get the f*@K out there and vote! Do a little harvesting of your own if it’s allowed in your state! Two can play at this game.

  15. avatar Gman says:

    Rights are absolute and not subject to regulation or restriction in any way. Heller is wrong, Scalia was wrong.

    1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      Gotta agree with you on this point. The right is absolute but the consequences on misusing it should be severe.

  16. avatar Tacoma236 says:

    The challenge to the court is to find a case that will provide complete determination on the second amendment. If they decide a case that is limited or “vague’ in determination ( a law that has been changed can easily be argued in lower courts as a “non decision”). It sets no precedent.

    I understand (and while I don’t agree with the process) the lengthy and maddeningly circuitous process of the American Legal System…but sadly I know of no other process that is better. If you do please let someone know.

    The Second Amendment is a right and sadly a responsibility. It is the cornerstone of protection for all of our other rights. The biggest mistake the court can make is a decision that has holes for multiple appeals. That can be held for years (until the court make up changes) and allow the liberals an easy shot.

    The Heller decision referenced the District of Columbia (thankfully NOT a state) the court is looking for a case where a State law can be challenged and therby give comprehensive decision.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Tacoma236,

      the court is looking for a case where a State law can be challenged and therby give comprehensive decision.

      Not sure if you are aware, McDonald v. Chicago applied Heller (and therefore the Second Amendment) to the states.

      At this point the U.S. Supreme Court must render a decision which:
      1) declares that the Second Amendment has full force outside the home in public
      2) requires strict scrutiny as the standard for all courts and all cases involving the Second Amendment
      3) eliminates almost all possible “compelling government interest” and “public safety” garbage justifications for infringements

      If the U.S. Supreme Court does that, they will have faithfully and righteously fulfilled their oath and duty to the United States Constitution and our fellow human beings. At that point the only remaining option for a future court to undermine the Second Amendment will be to completely violate/reverse the important precedent that I just outlined above, which most courts (and especially the U.S. Supreme Court) have historically been loath to do.

  17. avatar Shawn says:

    I don’t understand why the Washington post is worried. The Supreme Court will never take another Second Amendment case ever again. Even if a state declared gun ownership illegal and went door to door to confiscate all guns by force with the explicit intent to kill every gun owner in the state by immediately executing them without trial and survivors to be executed en masse in large public displays that the citizens are forced to go to and watch the Supreme Court will still not bother.

    At this point the Supreme Court is anti-gun if not more anti-gun than the ninth circuit. Don’t expect supreme court to ever save us. We’re beyond that point at a time. Also expect the Supreme Court to say it is within the governments rights to kill gun owners for owning guns. I also expect in 6 years when the democrats start nuking the population that as long as the use of nuclear weapons and United States system on United States soil is intended to kill gun owners that that is an acceptable course of action to take. Probably by not hearing the case that it should be illegal for the United States Government to exterminate its population. That is going to be rather deafening silence. Especially when the first nukes start dropping in the supreme court won’t say anything. After all nuclear weapons will be deployed to kill gun owners and to the supreme court and all courts all gun owners must be systematically exterminated. Killing hundreds of millions of other people it’s just an acceptable collateral.

    And you know what? I admit everything I say was crazy. But at this point do you honestly think the supreme court is going to ever help us ever again? They probably want to overrule hell are at McDonald’s. They probably view those decisions as their biggest mistake.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      There are only about 350 million of us right now, so no, I do not see ANY US government killing of two -thirds of the populations and nuking itself into a third world status, nor do I foresee the Supreme Court EVER ruling that the State can execute people without due process of law, as existing decisions demand. Further, it only takes four votes to grant cert, and there are four votes for that right now–the question is whether Roberts will join with them to make a majority. The four will be reticent to act if they don’t think they can count on him.

  18. avatar surlycmd says:

    In what way would a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the 2A, in any of th 10 cases, stop politicians, gun control group lawsuits or any other antigun crap from spreading around? Heller and MacDonald rulings have not limited any.

    Roe was ruled over 40 years a go. It hasn’t stopped legislators or protestor lawsuits. They all still trickle through legislatures and courts. Over and over and over…

    Same will continue to happen with 2A cases.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yes and no. Until a Supreme Court decision is overturned, everybody is stuck with it. Many of the abortion cases now pending are attempts to get Roe overturned. And we can expect the same in 2A cases. What we will see is the lower courts getting as close as they can to what Heller requires without apparently crossing the line. A classic example is a case where San Francisco enacted an ordinance that required all guns to be unloaded and locked up (shades of Heller) EXCEPT when in the actual possession, i.e. on the person of, the owner. The Ninth upheld the law and SCOTUS declined to grant review. Further, Heller says that no sliding scale analysis will be allowed–yet that is exactly what the 2,3,4 and 9th have been doing. The Court has yet to grant review because the 2A proponents could not be assured of a majority to overturn these decisions. The two new additions help, but one of them was just a replacement for Scalia. And Roberts still waffles.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        P.S.: All ten cases are up for review in conference tomorrow, 5/28 to see which, if any, will be granted cert, denied cert., or continued to a later conference. They are running out of time to make that decision this session.

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

          “They are running out of time to make that decision this session.”

          If memory serves, the ‘Heller’ decision was announced last, and on the last day of that court’s session.

          If they do, I’ll bet they will do the same…

  19. avatar JUSTPASSINTHRU says:

    So,,,, this is where the 2A ends? Despite the best efforts of our Nation’s Forefathers in enshrining the Right of Self Defense as a Natural Right (not to be infringed by our Government) we have devolved to the point where we are beholden to the tyranny of the majority in both our State and National Legislatures, in addition to our Courts. The Fate of the 2A has now arrived at this last bastion of hope in 9 politically appointed Justices (it could be argued that any outcome rests on Chief Justice Roberts) It is these individuals alone who will decide the authoritative definition of what the 2nd Amendment means and it’s expression in our modern era,,,, grim that it has come to this.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    So we really don’t have the right to keep and bear arms, we have the privilege of owning guns for the time being unless 5 people in black robes say we don’t. The 4th, 5th and definitively 1st are next to be re-interpreted. The only wall between the gun owners and gun takers in the sheer logistics of pulling off a confiscation and the very real fact it wouldn’t go smoothly.

  21. avatar JG says:

    “Since Heller,there has been virtually no disagreement among lower courts about how to apply these principles.”

    As bold-faced a lie as any that the Democrat Media Establishment has hoisted upon us.

    None of the appellate circuits can agree on the rules and restrictions and interpretation of Heller.

  22. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “The 4th, 5th and definitively 1st are next to be re-interpreted.”

    Happened already:

    1st: hate speech/crime
    4th: FISA; civilia asset forfeiture
    5th: you can be compelled to testify against yourself

  23. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    Well if the WaPo thinks thinks everything is fine, then I take the apposite opinion.

    Then again the facts of the matter determines that they are wrong. They don’t have science on their side nor common sense.

  24. avatar MJD says:

    The name should be changed to The Amazon Post.

  25. avatar jwm says:

    When Trump gets his second term RBG will be on thin ice, life expectancy wise. Maybe the realization that her ego and hubris led to losing the leftist control of the scotus will demoralize her enough to help shuffle her off this mortal coil.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Nah, she is a tough old bird.

  26. avatar Jim Warren says:

    Credibility? This court has credibility? Think I just threw up in my mouth…

  27. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    In time people will have to decide whether to follow the courts or to ignore them. In 1857 the nation choose to follow the court ruling in the Marie Sanders vs Dred scott case. The long term result was a civil war killing 700,000 soldiers and almost an equal number of civilian killed and or starved to death. Half the country was destroyed.

    Anyone who says a civilian isn’t allowed to own a machine gun or any weapon ( sword, grenade, armed boat, flamethrower, etc.) they choose is ignorant of the history of why the 2A was written. All gun control laws are illegal. They violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

    Lawyers, whatever side they are on, will not help you. Because the elected officials in your area will just ignore them. As they have done so in the past. You have a chance in Red States. In blue states you are simply losing your rights a year at a time. Perhaps in even less time. The communist/ fascist now believe they have the position of power to change the country. We will see.

    The local cops want to go home to their families. They know the civilian population has an equal firepower to them. In some areas the cops have more guns than civilians. But most of the country is not that way. The cops are outgunned in Red States.

    The 5 years ago the government was willing to send guns to shutdown a christian bakery. For refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. Now the government is sending guns to shutdown a gym and nail salon. People are arrested for swimming at the beach.

    It’s a fact that Timothy McVeigh, an atheist, was a reaction to the governments mass murder at Waco Tx. And at Ruby Ridge. He was caught and punished. In the end he was not sorry for what he did.
    James Hodgkinson, an atheist, also was not sorry for trying to murder over 20 republican congressmen. At the baseball field. He was a supporter of gun control. Except for his guns.

    I know things can change in any state. Including a constitutional carry state. Vermont. But when “the balloon goes up” its a great place to be starting in.
    Trump 2020. After that. Who knows???

  28. avatar PIGS says:

    WA Post Translation- Don’t take a gun rights case unless you are going to invalidate the 2nd Amendment.

  29. avatar Top says:

    Because the Supreme Court listens to the opinion of the press? Not hardly

Leave a Reply to Mark N. Cancel reply

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

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