What SCOTUS’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Mootness Means Now

supreme court new york rifle and pistol association v new york city

Bigstock

By LKB

As was reported earlier, the Supreme Court has punted today in NYSR&PA v City of New York, finding in a short, unsigned per curiam opinion that New York’s last-minute gamesmanship rendered the case moot. At the same time, the Court indicating that on remand, the plaintiffs could raise the issue of whether they would be allowed to amend their pleadings to assert additional claims for relief.

As Justice Alito (joined by Thomas and Gorsuch) pointed out in a powerful dissent, while the last-second change in the law gave the plaintiffs most of what they sought, it did not give them everything that they sought (or could have obtained) in their lawsuit. Thus under well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the case was not moot.

(The per curiam opinion did not even attempt to address the precedent Justice Alito cited.  Indeed, by acknowledging that the plaintiffs can raise issues of their entitlement to additional relief on remand, the majority’s finding of mootness truly makes no sense from a legal perspective.)

For example, as Alito pointed out, in this kind of civil rights litigation one of the key forms of relief you are entitled to seek is for attorneys fees if the lawsuit provokes a voluntary change of the law being challenged. Had New York City changed the law shortly after the plaintiffs filed suit, the plaintiffs could and likely would have sought attorneys fees under the theory that it was their action of challenging the law that caused the requested change.

But here, despite putting the plaintiffs to huge expense fighting this case for years — literally all the way to the Supreme Court — the City of New York is allowed to unilaterally cut off such a claim for substantial attorneys fees by a last-second tactical maneuver.

As I indicated in an earlier write-up of this case, the liberal wing of the Court may well rue this decision, as it may now be used to deny such relief in many other civil rights cases that are near and dear to their hearts.

Justice Alito also decried the Court blessing what was transparent gamesmanship designed to thwart Supreme Court review of the New York City law. Similar to arguments made previously by TTAG commentators, he wondered where that could go:

Or take this example. A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit? Suppose the court, following the precedent set by today’s decision, holds that the case is moot, and suppose that the woman brings a second case challenging the new law on the same ground. If the State repeals that law and replaces it with one requiring certification by two doctors, would the second suit be moot? And what if the State responds to a third suit by enacting replacement legislation demanding certification by one doctor? Mootness doctrine does not require such results. A challenge to an allegedly unconstitutional law does not become moot with the enactment of new legislation that reduces but does not eliminate the injury originally alleged. And that is the situation here.

Justice Alito went on to review the New York laws under both the “history, tradition, and text” and heightened scrutiny evaluations (note that Justice Thomas did not join in the portion of the dissent evaluating the New York laws under heightened scrutiny, which perhaps portends that he is in favor of the “history, tradition, and text” test favored by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch).

To no one’s surprise Alito found that the New York laws violated the Second Amendment under either evaluation. Of particular interest, he completely trashed the “evidence” on which New York City purported to justify the need for the law in the first place (a justification that they conveniently abandoned at oral argument).

In a concurrence, Justice Kanavaugh indicated that he joined in the decision to dismiss the appeal as moot (which, given his opinions in other standing cases, is a surprise, but not a complete shock), but left little doubt as to where he stands on Second Amendment cases:

I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

So, where does this leave us? There are at least twelve Second Amendment cases currently pending before the Supreme Court, including challenges to Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland “may issue” licensing systems, the California “microstamping” law, and various state MSR bans.

There are four Justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) who are unambiguously on record as wanting to take up another Second Amendment case. As all of them have pointed out in many dissents, they are not amused by lower courts thumbing their noses at Heller and McDonald.

By the same token, there are four Justices (Breyer, Ginzburg, Kagen, Sotomajor) who would clearly reverse Heller if given the chance.

The question thus becomes, “What will Roberts do?”

Given that he chickened out in the Obamacare decision and appears to have chickened out or been intimidated into finding the NYSR&PA case moot, I am not particularly sanguine. The tell will be what happens in the very near future on all the Second Amendment cases being “held” by the Supreme Court.

There are the requisite four votes needed to grant cert on one or more of them, as Justice Sotomayor seemed to resignedly admit at the NYSR&PA oral argument. If we start seeing a slew of cased being “cert denied” in the near future, then it probably portends that Roberts has become the new Kennedy, and thus the pro-2A wing of the Court won’t vote to grant cert on a 2A because they aren’t sure Roberts won’t chicken out once again.

That would, of course, put us right back in the Kennedy era Mexican standoff that facilitated the nose-thumbing disrespect shown for Heller and McDonald by so many lower courts.

My prediction: unless we’re back to a standoff, I’ll predict we’ll see one of the challenges to the New Jersey laws teed up next (Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo, or Ciolek v. New Jersey). My personal longer-shot favorite: the Fifth Circuit decision in Mance v. Barr. That case deals with the federal ban on sales of handguns to out-of-state residents. Given the current gridlock in Congress, that case can’t be mooted by a last-minute change in the law and, like the laws in NYSR&PA, is pretty much recognized as indefensible under any serious level of scrutiny.

UPDATE: From Chuck Michel, attorney and president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association:

 

comments

  1. avatar TommyGNR says:

    Roberts is spineless.

    1. avatar Jim Warren says:

      I was thinking sackless, but whatever.

    2. avatar Thixotropic says:

      “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
      Thomas Jefferson, Letter to W.C. Jarvis, 1820

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

        We have potentially *serious* good news in that UPDATE above :

        “UPDATE: All TEN of the 2A related cases that were on hold in SCOTUS have been distributed for the internal SCOTUS conference this Friday. The Court will probably vote on whether to take one or more of those cases then, though it might take several such conferences for the Court to decide.”

        And this :

        “BREAKING: SCOTUS Will Consider Assault Weapons and CCW Cases This Friday”

        https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/g96bh8/breaking_scotus_will_consider_assault_weapons_and/

        1. avatar Reply says:

          Unless there an “Or else” tied to them, none of those will provide relief to civil rights violations.

        2. avatar TruthTellers says:

          Yeah, I’m not going to hold my breath. This NYS Rifle and Pistol case was clearly a violation of the 2nd Amendment and making it moot just because the state of NY did a last minute reversal to stop a SCOTUS ruling now opens the door for various state and local governments to do the same thing in the event their clearly unconstitutional laws are granted cert for SCOTUS.

          Roberts is swiftly becoming the worst Chief Justice in SCOTUS history. Decades after he’s dead and gone scholars of the future are going to look at him with disgust.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      …well,..that was predictable…(NYC, and all)….does seem as though they are getting fed- up with Heller being ignored, though…….

  2. avatar RuthVader says:

    I’m not one to wish harm on anyone, but hopefully there’s a vacancy soon.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      I wish for a Vacancy after Nov 3rd, and only if Joe fails. If a Vacancy opens up now the Democrats will fight confirmation.

      1. avatar Oliver says:

        R’s still have a slim majority in Senate. D’s enacted nuclear option. R’s did the election-year delay 4 years ago. Who knows what would happen !

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          The election year delay (funny enough, the “Biden rule”) was specifically for when a lame duck’s appointment comes up in an election year. It won’t apply to Trump as he’s still viable for a second term, although the dems would most likely stomp their feet and lie about it in any case.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          “was specifically for when a lame duck’s appointment comes up in an election year. ”

          haha it’s whatever they say it is. They never complained when Bush W was appointing judges late in his term. Next you might as well say “it was specifically for when a President with the last name ending in -ma has an appointment”

          Don’t pretend that this has some objective standard. It was, and is, purely cynical politics.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      The Chicom flu and the 4 chics are made for each other.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      I used to always say I wouldn’t wish harm on anyone, but lately I’ve realized that’s a false standard, and one I could never have lived up to in any case.

      I truly don’t want anyone to suffer needlessly — and that is exactly why I’m rooting for RBG to just die already. She has already caused irreparable harm to this nation, to American culture, and the rule of constitutional law. Death is the only thing that will stop her.

      Being kind to the cruel only visits more cruelty on the kind. Being forgiving and gracious with progressives, who are profoundly vindictive and grasping, only gives them more scope for making misery.

      For that reason, if death = harm, then I DO wish harm on a few select people. For very good reason. In fact, it makes no sense *not* to.

  3. avatar Texican says:

    My question is this: Can the SCOTUS grant cert to the other cases and review them this year or do we have to wait until next year?

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Anything they grant cert on now (April/May 2020) won’t be heard until next term. Recall that cert was granted in NYSR&PA in January 2019; argued Dec 2019; “decided” April 2020.

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

        LKB –

        Is this what I think it might be? :

        https://airtable.com/shrcrC5FsedZqIi3T/tblMclNyymYiklOOg/viwM47ZZsFWQo69Vf?blocks=hide

        *10* Gun cased distributed for conference?

        1. avatar LKB says:

          It’s being reported that a bunch of 2A cases that were previously distributed for conference (and “held” pending resolution of NYSR&PA) have been set to be taken up again at this Thursday’s conference. I have not checked the dockets on all of them, but Mance v. Barr was definitely relisted yesterday for the Thursday conference, so does appear to be accurate.

          That doesn’t mean that they will actually make a decision on whether to take up one or more of them on Thursday, but it’s possible. (They often “relist” cases to be taken up again at the next conference.)

          Orders from the Thursday conference are typically announced the following Monday (occasionally, an order issues on Friday, but that’s not the norm). You can tune in to SCOTUSBlog’s live coverage Monday morning (10AM Eastern) to see what orders come down.

          Given that there are four solid votes for granting cert (which is all you need) if we start seeing a lot of “cert denied” results in major cases then I’ll bet that signals that Roberts has gone completely wobbly, and we’re back to a standoff.

  4. avatar Hankus says:

    I wouldn’t trust Roberts with a burnt out match.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Depends on what he wanted it for.

  5. avatar Noamsaying says:

    Roberts – a Bush appointee. What more do I have to say?

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Perhaps,Please Clap,this nation has suffered mightily because of them,No More Bush’s Ever

      1. avatar saran wrappe says:

        Easy there big fella. How about you reword to “No more political bushes!”

        1. avatar Dave G. says:

          saran wrappe:

          How about you reword to: “No more political dynasties, whatever the name.”

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      The judge who has been making waves by trying to knock out gun control in California is a Bush appointee.

  6. avatar Paul says:

    That is precisely why we need to be campaigning for Republicans now. We need majorities in both the house and senate, and we need Trump reelected. Anything less is a disaster for the second amendment. Even if Ginsberg croaks tonight, we probably won’t see a Trump appointee confirmed before the election. We NEED Trump to be reelected, preferably by more than 51% of the popular vote. 60% would be great, but anything greater than 51 would be good.

    1. avatar Enuf says:

      I see few opportunities for any of those wins to come to pass. A Congress where both houses are held by one party is generally something voters prefer to avoid, unless the President is of a different party. There are so many ways in which our Republic could be harmed by either party having a majority in House, Senate and White House it is too unpleasant to contemplate.

      Trump may well win again. Last December-January I’d of said it was a certainty. Now I am less confident. Depends on the COVID-19 situation in the months ahead and how Biden performs going forward. There are landmines in both of those, for both candidates.

      I do see that Trump’s performance on COVID-19 is polling to have hurt him in real terms in some key states he needs to win, but is now down in compared to 2016.

      Not making any predictions here, just seeing the ground shifting under the candidate’s feet. Rather like waves of multiple storms colliding from different directions, it is chaotic and filled with growing uncertainty.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Um… Trump’s numbers have gone UP since the chi-com-kung-pow-flu hit the US. It wasn’t until the media panicked and stopped carrying his briefings live that they started to go down again.

      2. avatar warfab says:

        Technically, Trump isn’t really a Republican or Democrat, so the same party wouldn’t really be controlling all three branches.

    2. avatar FB says:

      I fear even if we had both house and senate again it will not make a difference. We’ve had both house and senate and nothing was done. Honestly, the Republicans for some reason don’t like making waves. If I were them, I would have come down on the democrats like a ton of bricks for every single law they broke from the Clintons to the whole fake impeachment.
      The only true answer that has worked is the overwhelming protest in large numbers. If we are committed to keeping the 2nd amendment, we need a huge army of protesters to show we mean business. And the numbers need to be bigger than the past to make it work.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        We haven’t held the Senate in decades. Try again. The magic number for the Senate is 61, not 51.

  7. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “The question thus becomes, “What will Roberts do?””

    How that individual can even look himself in the mirror is the question.

    He has proven his first duty is not to the Constitution and has thus proven the need for impeachment and removal from the body of the court.

  8. avatar 9x39 says:

    At this point, I’d submit that enough evidence is present that Roberts has indeed thrown in with the opposition as the Quisling he was always suspected by some to be. His actions during Heller, & subsequent have pretty well proved such, and any hope to the future of the contrary is/was baseless wishing.

  9. avatar MarkPA says:

    Thanks to LKB who seems to know what he is talking about here.

    “Thus under well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the case was not moot.” Thus, the case shows that SCOTUS will do whatever it feels like doing; and, if that is to duck its responsibility and let the political branches do what they will, then they will duck their responsibility.

    It’s our duty to play the game by the rules we are stuck with. Continue to bring cases showing the courts that we will not go away quietly. Bring cases that play the game according to the rules we are stuck with – and play to win, not merely to scream impotently.

    Either the outcome of 2A jurisprudence is in the hands of the Almighty in the next few months; or, it is in OUR hands to settle the matter politically. In the 2020 election for President; or, politics by other means.

    It is our duty to get out and vote, early and often, holding our noses (if necessary) in the spirit of social distancing. But vote for the Trump of our choice; just vote! There is no other means of getting another originalist on the SCOTUS bench. The only alternative is blood.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    What SCOTUS’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Mootness Means Now: it means that Jake the Snake Roberts is this generation’s Harry Blackmun and we can count on receiving zero help from SCOTUS.

    We’ve been betrayed again.

  11. avatar Nanashi says:

    ““history, tradition, and text” test favored by Kavanaugh ”

    The what? The only tradition Kavanaugh is in favor of is that of tyranny. He literally outright said that full-auto was bannable because it has been banned and has traditionally been banned. It’s in the supposedly great Heller discussion nobody actually read.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I came to say the same thing: this “history, tradition, and text” standard of judicial review is obscene. Under that standard, the United States Supreme court would be inclined to uphold rape if it had a long history and tradition of being “legal” and it was legalized somewhere.

      I have a novel idea: how about the United States Supreme Court implement a standard of judicial review that looks almost exclusively at justice and right versus wrong?

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        Right on point. Part of what I just posted in reply to another…

        “He (Kavanaugh) contended that a test that assesses “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition” will often give governments “more flexibility and power” than a balancing test, because “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right.”

        Kavanaugh’s position is; anything that gives the governing body more power is good. That he stated directly. Read between the lines, that which gives power back to the people is bad, Mmm’kay? Let’s dissect his statement:

        – Variety of regulations? The only regulation was the prohibition on individuals possessing said after a felonious conviction. Something that should give one pause, is the massive expansion of felony offenses in the decades, and centuries since. If you think there was no plan in play before NFA 1934, I’d suggest you look into the former.

        – Co-existed? Nice misdirection of the truth, infringed upon is much more accurate, and less a lie.

        – Flexibility? End run around existing law binding the government from exceeding it’s color of authority, anyone? Conjecture on my part, but a very suspect wording to say the least.

        – Text? From whose playbook? Founding Fathers, or perhaps Everytown’s & the Brady Foundation’s?

        – Tradition? Oh right, I know! Let’s use Chicago’s tradition. Or D.C.’s, or NYC’s, or Cali’s, or….

        Being facetious and a bit snarky, but I think the point is clear. He is another Roberts, that’s my take.

        1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right.”

          So the people should have revolted in 1934 is how I read that statement. If they had, gun control would have died before it even got started. Accordingly, sounds like he’s say we had better revolt at the next pro gun control decision.

          Is there any other way to interpret that?

    2. avatar Ed says:

      Regarding Kavanaugh’s “history, tradition, and text”, see Plessey v. Ferguson.

      https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    Putting your rights into the hands of others. What could possibly go wrong?

  13. avatar Debbie W. says:

    It looks like NY squeezed the wenie out of the hotdog and the case went moot. NY switched gears and some justices see that as being acceptable. Reminds me of roberts lending an underhanded helping hand to a disaster called obamacare.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      ….here’s hoping they get some heat over this cop-out….

  14. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Roberts is a catastrophic failure.

  15. avatar Enuf says:

    I wonder if there is something of a Hoplophobic trigger here that is a factor of scale. Where a Supreme Court Judge is a defender of the Second Amendment on one case, he or she may not be on another. The deciding factor being that emotional reaction to the weight of the specific decision being called for. A case on the merits of interstate transport of a firearm for lawful purpose at the origin and destination is one thing. But another case that carries the implication of eradicating State and Federal gun laws from the Sullivan Act, to the NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 and many more, well a decision on vast scale could push a pro-2A judge into a Hoplophobic emotional break.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I have no problem giving money to the SAF or other good lawyers fighting the good fight, for civil rights in the court systems. But that is not a long-term solution. The gun grabbers know they can just spend “government’s money” fighting people against having their civil rights.
    The only long-term solution is to put 2A education and rifle teams back into the public school systems.

    And make it your business to know who is sitting on a school board. If that person is not married and has no children they have no business being on a school board anywhere in the country.

    In fact if you have no children you have no business having the power to decide over matters regarding children. I hear people say that men should have no power to say over whether or not a woman has an abortion. Since it’s her body. And they can’t have children.

    It was socialist progressives who have children. Who got elected and started to remove rifle teams from the schools.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Fair enough, just so long as I also don’t have to PAY for said children. Seems fair.

      I say we need to abolish the public school system in its entirety. It is not my job to pay for other people’s kids to get a shitty indoctrination

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The atheists in this country will never allow the public education system to be abolished. Because historically all education in the United States was religious-based. The Bible was used to teach children how to read. That goes back 500 years to Martin Luther.

        Just as there is no separation between church and state in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. There is no reference in the Bill of Rights stating arms only belong to the National Guard.

        I will not be waiting holding my breath for the people who are so boisterous to say the government should stay out of a woman’s womb. For those same people to say that the government should stay out the education of other peoples children.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Well you know, I don’t think atheists are responsible for the public education system, I think it was created by citizens who realized the value to our society of having educated citizens.

          In any case, there’s no evidence to suggest that anyone’s sky daddy can manifest any sort of power on this planet.

          In fact, I see a recent report on the failure of this gentleman‘s sky daddy to keep him safe from the coronavirus, that his sky daddy placed on earth.

          “A leader of a Facebook group demanding that North Carolina allow businesses to reopen amid the Covid-19 pandemic has tested positive for coronavirus but is still insisting that Governor Roy Cooper’s stay-at-home order be rescinded, saying it violates her right to freedom of religion.
          Audrey Whitlock is one of the leaders of the ReOpen NC Facebook group, which has close to 70,000 online members and has organized weekly in-person rallies demanding that the state reopen. Whitlock described herself as an “asymptomatic Covid-19 patient” in a since-deleted post to the group on Sunday morning. Regardless of her potential to infect others, she said that abiding by the governor’s orders meant her rights were being violated.
          “The reality is that modern society has not been able to eradicate contagious viruses. A typical public health quarantine would occur in a medical facility,” Whitlock wrote, according to WNCN. “I have been told not to participate in public or private accommodations as requested by the government, and therefore denied my 1st amendment right of freedom of religion.”

          It looks as if his particular deity failed to deliver him from the plague that his particular deity (‘all-powerful‘) must’ve placed on earth.

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Well Minor, if she tested positive, felt no ill effects, and got over it so now she has antibodies, sounds to me like the Big Guy did pretty good by her!

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Why did she even get COVID-19?

          Was God just not paying attention?

          And just why did Jesus send the COVID-19 in the first place, which seems to be slaying his followers at the same rate as the unbelievers?

          Can he not tell the difference, and pass over his followers? And speaking of Passover, why did he need blood on the door post, did he not even know where his followers lived?

        4. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Minor
          Maybe he did it to protect her from the deadlier form.

          How do you know they’re believers? Maybe they’re the religious equivalent of RINOs, the worst kind of scum.

          Not even going to answer the weird tangent about passover. You’re just all over the place.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Chris,

      That was the very reason why only property owners could vote on property (and related tax) matters during the early years of the United States. Something I wish we could revert back to.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I actually agree with you. If you don’t own land , you don’t own physical property, you don’t get to vote. And the Libertarians Liberals and the Left have been lying to you. Women land owners voted at the time of the founding of this country. And free blacks who owned land also voted in this country. Free black landowners in free states have always voted.

        Look it up if you don’t believe me. And while you’re looking you’ll find stories of white people being discriminated against when it came to the vote as well.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Chris T in KY,

      And make it your business to know who is sitting on a school board. If that person is not married and has no children they have no business being on a school board anywhere in the country.

      If only it were that easy and simple.

      I know exactly who is on my school board and no less than two of them are totally unfit. The problem is that voters put them there. As a result, our school district is now openly CONDEMNING people for having Northern European lineage (e.g. being “white”), vowing to PUNISH “hate” speech (where “hate” speech is any speech that does not support the Far Left agenda), has opened middle school and high school girl’s locker rooms and bathrooms to boys, and is REQUIRING students to CELEBRATE transgenderism and homosexuality. This is a gigantic hot mess that very well could make its way all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (We are gearing up for it and already starting our planning to raise the pile of cash that will require.) Meanwhile, our school district is blissfully unaware that they are very likely going to lose at least 1/3rd of their student body (who will migrate to other school districts, private schools, or homeschooling) which will utterly bankrupt them.

      Of course we tried the polite route and that got us nowhere. Make no mistake: the Far Left are nasty, resentful, spiteful, angry, and sour people who will quite literally bite their own noses off to spite their faces. That means they are all too happy to bite your nose off to spite you as well.

      I fear the only solution to this is for people in the middle and the right to start expressing extremely angry sentiments at all of the Far Left garbage. Polite discourse and reasoning does not work.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Edit
        I was socialist progressives who HAVE NO children. Who then got elected and started destroying rifle teams. And passing anti civil-rights legislation.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        ….gays seem to have a lot of cash to throw around…and we all know politicians are for sale…

  17. avatar anarchyst says:

    One overlooked aspect of the court’s refusal to grant “standing” in this case is that neither the city or state will dare to change the present law if it imposes any 2A restrictions as it would open the case back up. This could be considered a “plus” for the Second Amendment.

  18. avatar Jeff says:

    So another year, then? In a year, anything can happen. We might have Biden in office, or perhaps his upcoming VP pick when it’s obvious Biden is unfit, and at that point we are one heartbeat away from a liberal court. This was a loss for liberty. Full stop.

    The liberal justices don’t care that they are setting a bad precedent for the court. The less credibility the court has, the better. Ultimately, SCOTUS is a barrier between the government and the power it seeks. Liberals can discard the precedent they set today when they have the majority, or keep following it as long as they are in the minority — they win either way.

    No sugar coating this one. It’s bad. A year is too far away, and too many laws will be passed in the mean time. Once the laws are in place it will be harder to undo them. And even if we get a favorable SCOTUS ruling, there are still a ton of cases that need to wind through the courts, each one playing games along the way (for instance, the 9th is blocking injunctions by lower courts, and then dragging its feet to resolve the cases). Before we really get favorable rulings from lower courts on anything, the makeup of SCOTUS will change, and the liberals will have no problem overturning precedent (they only care about precedent if it’s convenient).

    Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Kavanaugh, Roberts: congratulations, you lived up to your own rules. Now that you’ve allowed the liberals to undermine the court itself through gamesmanship, denying the plaintiffs any compensation for the losses they have suffered, what’s your next play? Wait for another case, and I’m sure that will be a clean, fair fight, right? Just like Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings?

    A decade hence, look back. This was the moment, and it was missed. Sorry to break it to you.

  19. avatar Dave says:

    Well, it looks like Kavanaugh has fucked somebody without their consent.

  20. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    “Well-settled precedent” can be dangerous too though, as many could say, “It is well-settled precedent among the lower courts that assault weapons bans are constitutional.”

  21. avatar 2aguy says:

    And this is why we need to go out and vote for Trump and every single spineless republican on the ballot…..numbers matter since congress works on majority rule….the republicans will confirm any judge Trump puts up….a democrat controlled Senate ends the hopes of replacing ginsburg with another real Justice or even that other doofus left winger if he also retires…….so…tell all your “never Trumper cause I don’t like his tweets,” foolishness friends they need to vote for every single Republican on the ticket….otherwise the democrats will block Trump and his appointments. Any vote for a democrat, any non-vote for a Republican, is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment……and yes…that means for hunting rifles and shotguns too…….

  22. avatar barbarajarp says:

    Sarah Y. Linda don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website….? http://www.6.gp/a72sV

  23. avatar Jonathan Long says:

    “The liberal wing of the Court may well rue this decision, as it may now be used to deny such relief in many other civil rights cases that are near and dear to their hearts.”
    yeah right, why do we keep acting like the laws apply to them when time and time again we are shown it doesn’t.

  24. “By the same token, there are four Justices (Breyer, Ginzburg, Kagen, Sotomajor) who would clearly reverse Heller if given the chance.”

    Probably – but we could be surprised. Consider that all nine justices found the MA ban on stun guns unconstitutional in a summary decision. We know that there are at least 4 justices who will vote to affirm and likely expand Heller. Roberts likely would do the same if forced to decide. I agree that Breyer, Ginzburg, and Sotomajor will vote to reverse. I do think that Kagan probably would do so, but there is a small chance that she would affirm Heller, and maybe to expand it.

    In any case, I think that we may very well see SCOTUS take one or more cases on carry rights and potentially an AWB case too. We will find out on Monday.

  25. avatar 427forever says:

    what would you expect of Roberts , Obummer had the CIA spy on him & caught him with his kiddie porn , they can turn his vote on any issue they want = he must be removed from office !

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Chief justice Roberts with kiddie porn?

      Lordy, you people are a hoot!

Leave a Reply to Thixotropic 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