Is it good that Clarence Thomas is authoring the opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc?

Better than Kagan or Sotomayor writing it!

Thomas has been solidly conservative since day one, which is why they tried to Anita Hill him during confirmation (Kavanaugh as well). I think since Scalia isn’t alive anymore, Thomas is the best one for a pro 2A majority opinion.

Stay safe.

Why would you think it wouldn't be better having Thomas do so?

Why would anyone know that? The Court has yet to hear oral arguments, much less rendered an opinion. Typically, after a decision is reached, the Chief Justice assigns a majority member to author the decision. Usually, but not always, that will be the senior member of the majority.

Remember Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago. He was the lone voice contending that the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated" (as against the states) under the the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment rather than under the Due Process clause. This is a much stronger basis for incorporation.

Aim1 said:

It is said that Clarence Thomas will be authoring the opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.


While Thomas appears to be solidly pro-2nd Amendment would it be better to have Brett Kavanagh or Amy Coney-Barrett author the opinion?


If you think so, why?

Click to expand...

Clarence Thomas is absolutely the best to write this opinion. He is a real conservative constitutionalist. Not so sure about others. My .02.

Aim1 said:

It is said that Clarence Thomas will be authoring the opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.


While Thomas appears to be solidly pro-2nd Amendment would it be better to have Brett Kavanagh or Amy Coney-Barrett author the opinion?


If you think so, why?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. The opinion is written by the majority decision of the board. That means the outcome is likely going to reflect the values and legal opinion of the conservatives on the court. As to which specific conservative justice writes it, that doesn't matter. In the eyes of liberals they are all racist & sexists anyway.

I would sooner have Justice Thomas on this task than any of the others currently on the SCOTUS. It will be soundly reasoned and grounded in Constitutional law. Justice Thomas doesn't talk much---in court or out---but when he sets pen to paper you can follow exactly his reasoning for judgment.

I am expecting a mealy-mouthed, narrowly focused decision that makes it a bit harder for NY to reject applications. I'd much rather see a far reaching, comprehensive decision that solidifies what the framers mean by "bear."

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Nothing I read in that phrase is mushy, gray or out of context - Your Honor, that phrase is my case and as I have no further, the people rest.

Aim1 said:

It is said that Clarence Thomas will be authoring the opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

Click to expand...

Sorry to rain on this, but it can't be true. They haven't even heard arguments yet.

Steve S. said:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Nothing I read in that phrase is mushy, gray or out of context - Your Honor, that phrase is my case and as I have no further, the people rest.

Click to expand...

If only it were that simple.

AlexanderA., it is that simple - it is allowed to be made complex with spinning noise. If you truly believe in that document, you will drowned out the noise and in the end, fight for what is right. Eventually opposing words end up on the battlefield anyway, the winner will then get to interpret the words. We vote so that we don’t fight - when voting goes south, then what is left. Intellect and education is many times the enemy to your heart’s voice - stay intellectual my friends.

Any legal document -- which is certainly what the Constitution is -- is subject to the jurisprudence that grows up around it. The Constitution is not self-executing, and is subject to the filter of the courts.

In particular, the 2nd Amendment means what the latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court says it means. You can't read the text of the 2nd Amendment without reading the Heller case alongside it. If a case comes along that supersedes Heller, than we'll have to read that instead.

Agree that it wouldn't make sense to designate an author prior to arguments, much less a decision. Making the case a foregone conclusion? Seems overconfident to me. What happens if the person designated to author the dissenting opinion doesn't dissent? Or the writer of the majority opinion doesn't actually vote with the majority?

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/

Apparently, the opinion, vote and the author are TBD.

Overconfident indeed. Don't jinx the case.

AlexanderA said:

Any legal document -- which is certainly what the Constitution is -- is subject to the jurisprudence that grows up around it. The Constitution is not self-executing, and is subject to the filter of the courts.

In particular, the 2nd Amendment means what the latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court says it means. You can't read the text of the 2nd Amendment without reading the Heller case alongside it. If a case comes along that supersedes Heller, than we'll have to read that instead.

Click to expand...

Methinks you might want to parse that statement a bit more carefully.................in point of fact the Constitution is not subject to the courts whim..................rather the courts are subject to the constitution, the document that created them!
Think about it, those that dabble in the practice of law do so ultimately ONLY at the will of the people! All other considerations aside, the concept of the "holy see" of the the legal profession itself is one really powerful reason for the very existence of our bill of rights and in particular the second amendment thereto!

I don't want to belabor the point, but although the Constitution is foundational, the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the courts. There are lots of areas where the black-letter language is not clear. For example, in a cursory reading of the 2nd Amendment, a person could get the impression that the concept of a militia is important. (That the militia -- the people -- is to be as well armed as the standing army, etc.) Not so, according to Justice Scalia writing in the Heller opinion. And, like it or not, what the Supreme Court says controls.

Thomas can write them all as far as I’m concerned.
Matter of fact we can just fire the other 8 altogether.

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

Gee, I wonder what they really meant. It’s so unclear. I wish I knew what they meant by “people”, or by “infringed”. So confusing.

Just kidding. Seems pretty clear to me. But, I don’t need to debate what the meaning of “is” is either. Geez.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution as it applies to Cases and Controversies. It is not within their power to issue interpretations in the absence of a dispute.

The second amendment is only complicated to those that make a living twisting the truth, obfuscating the truth, and lying. It’s also only a piece of paper and if we can’t settle our disagreements in the voting booth then we all know how they will be settled. Most of the signers knew that we would have to revolt every so often or lose our freedom to the liars. It is a shame that our soft lifestyle has made us forget.

kwguy said:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

Gee, I wonder what they really meant. It’s so unclear. I wish I knew what they meant my “people”, or by “infringed”. So confusing.

Just kidding. Seems pretty clear to me.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I said when I was in Jr. High School and they were debating what would become the GCA 1968.
See where that argument went?

The only thing that has changed is the faces and the determination level of the people opposing the 2nd amendment.

Casefull said:

The second amendment is only complicated to those that make a living twisting the truth, obfuscating the truth, and lying. It’s also only a piece of paper and if we can’t settle our disagreements in the voting booth then we all know how they will be settled. Most of the signers knew that we would have to revolt every so often or lose our freedom to the liars. It is a shame that our soft lifestyle has made us forget.

Click to expand...

Very well put.

But it is good to analyze the possibilities in advance of the case being heard. To dismiss it as mere "speculation" is unfair.

It seems to little old me that most of the obfuscation and confusion-generation is based on the old "common law" principles... mainly founded on English Law.

But I have long regarded the Constitution as a new formulation of Common Law and should be read on its own without reference to antiquated principles, even while admitting to various flaws exposed by time.

I too was around when GCA 68 was being thrashed out, and the above concept occurred to me back then. It was a big surprise to many in the gun community that GCA 68 could and did get passed.

But what the heck, at the age of 29, I had a living to make and had the usual personal battles to fight and figured GCA 68 would ultimately be shot down in the Courts either as a whole or part-by-part.

But... the obfuscators and word-warpers won out.

And I still wonder what became of the motivations of "a number of the States" in wanting to solidify certain rights, according to the Preamble of the Bill Of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

You can't warp those words....

Terry, 230RN