Conservative Justices Declined to Take Up Second Amendment Case after Roberts Signaled He Would Side

Status
Not open for further replies.
The unfortunate outcome of the denial of Cert for 10 cases is that it creates a default in which States can enact bans, require purchase permits, and issue carry permits on a “may issue” basis rather than a shall issue” basis. It looks like we will continue to face the reality of 50+ different gun laws. Generally I support the concept of Federalism except in matters where a core Constitutional issues are involved. If the contest of the limitations on 2A are not core issues I guess I will never understand why. I am doubly glad I live in PA where the State Constitution establishes the right to bear arms and the gun laws are reasonable.
 
I doubt that it's as simple as the article seems to indicate. Roberts is an institutionalist, and he knows that if the Court's rulings move too far to the right, a Democrat-controlled Congress may well expand the Court's membership to 11 or 15 Justices (13 is an unlucky number). And then liberals would be appointed to fill the vacancies. So, Roberts picks and chooses the cases carefully in which to tip his conservative hand. It's not that Roberts is against guns in principle. It's that guns are low on his list of priorities.
 
I doubt that it's as simple as the article seems to indicate. Roberts is an institutionalist, and he knows that if the Court's rulings move too far to the right, a Democrat-controlled Congress may well expand the Court's membership to 11 or 15 Justices (13 is an unlucky number). And then liberals would be appointed to fill the vacancies. So, Roberts picks and chooses the cases carefully in which to tip his conservative hand. It's not that Roberts is against guns in principle. It's that guns are low on his list of priorities.
I disagree with your guestimation, but everyone is welcome to have one. If Trump wins another term, Roberts will not matter. If Biden wins, SCOTUS will lean heavy left. I doubt that any of the Justices are basing their decisions off the threats of a handful of grandstanding threats.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with your guestimation, but everyone is welcome to have one. If Trump wins another term, Roberts will not matter. If Biden wins, SCOTUS will lean heavy left. I doubt that any of the Justices are basing their decisions off the threats of a handful of grandstanding threats.
RBG will retire next..she is 'liberal' and will be replaced with the same mindset. Thomas has been mentioned but no real guarantee he will retire..so..essentially stay the same.
 
This is moved and reopened in hopes that an On Topic discussion for Activism Discussion can be held.

The Nat Review article is more of an FYI and I expect thread to be the same so let us not hare off on sidebars and wild speculation. SCOTUS has refused to hear cases related to the 2A and there has been debate on why/why not.

As to the NYC case, since the NYC law was changed it was unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS purely because there was no decision on law to be made. There's no other reason needed for SCOUTS to reject a case.
 
Just to point out the original came from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/poli...urt-liberals-daca-second-amendment/index.html

Roberts also sent enough signals during internal deliberations on firearms restrictions, sources said, to convince fellow conservatives he would not provide a critical fifth vote anytime soon to overturn gun control regulations. As a result, the justices in June denied several petitions regarding Second Amendment rights.
...
Among the many mysteries of the recent session is why the conservative justices stopped pressing for a new firearms case that would allow them to bolster Second Amendment rights.
After hearing a New York City gun regulation challenge in December, the majority decided the case was moot because the city had amended its ordinance which banned the transporting of guns to firing ranges or second homes outside the city.
CNN has learned that resolution of that case took many twists and multiple draft opinions. Guided by Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh crafted much of what turned out to be an unsigned "per curiam" opinion -- joined by six justices, including Roberts -- returning the case to lower court judges. Kavanaugh also wrote a separate statement -- this one he signed -- suggesting it was time for the justices to resolve conflicting interpretations of Second Amendment rights.
Challenges to other firearms regulations were pending and conservatives who had wanted to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment had to consider whether to bring the issue back to the justices.
It takes four votes to accept a case and five to rule on it, and sources have told CNN that the justices on the right did not believe they could depend on a fifth vote from Roberts, who had in 2008 and 2010 voted for milestone gun-rights rulings but more recently seemed to balk at the fractious issue.

In mid-June, the high court turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws limiting the availability of firearms and when they can be carried in public. The action perplexed court observers who had believed the right-wing majority was eager to further elucidate the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller. Some conservative justices indeed wanted to take up the issue, but they apparently could not count on a majority.
Not only was Roberts, with his new position at the middle of the bench since the 2018 retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, controlling how cases were decided, he also was influencing what cases were even taken up

Well, that's that. One might argue that if Trump gets re-elected and Ginsburg retires, he will put forward a conservative.

The issues with that is:

1. Will a conservative be progun beyond Heller and home SD? The conservative push is really more focused on sexual issues and immigration. 2nd Amendment is not a priority. So a new justice might not care.
2. Do all the old cases have to resubmitted? Are new ones viable? Given precedent would a new one be take up? Can 5 justices overcome the Chief Justices?
3. If Trump loses, the legislative option is doomed. It was already doomed as the GOP leadership were spineless when they had control. Yes, Obama care and tax cuts were more important - to whom, I ask? The filibuster could have be waved. The Democrats are thinking of doing that if they get simple majority control of the Senate.
4. Perhaps the newer lower court folks will overturn state bans and maybe even a circuit would. We will see.

But remember - send a check!!

I won't see a roll back on restrictions in my lifetime, I'm afraid. Classic, 'elite' conservatives do not have fire in the belly for gun rights. Mitch, Ryan, Bush II, Romney, Bork, Berger, Dole, Bush I, Reagan (on Brady) and others have demonstrated that.

The threat of packing the court is hot air. The threat was not used when the court took up other hot social issues.
 
Just to point out the original came from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/poli...urt-liberals-daca-second-amendment/index.html



Well, that's that. One might argue that if Trump gets re-elected and Ginsburg retires, he will put forward a conservative.

The issues with that is:

1. Will a conservative be progun beyond Heller and home SD? The conservative push is really more focused on sexual issues and immigration. 2nd Amendment is not a priority. So a new justice might not care.
2. Do all the old cases have to resubmitted? Are new ones viable? Given precedent would a new one be take up? Can 5 justices overcome the Chief Justices?
3. If Trump loses, the legislative option is doomed. It was already doomed as the GOP leadership were spineless when they had control. Yes, Obama care and tax cuts were more important - to whom, I ask? The filibuster could have be waved. The Democrats are thinking of doing that if they get simple majority control of the Senate.
4. Perhaps the newer lower court folks will overturn state bans and maybe even a circuit would. We will see.

But remember - send a check!!

I won't see a roll back on restrictions in my lifetime, I'm afraid. Classic, 'elite' conservatives do not have fire in the belly for gun rights. Mitch, Ryan, Bush II, Romney, Bork, Berger, Dole, Bush I, Reagan (on Brady) and others have demonstrated that.

The threat of packing the court is hot air. The threat was not used when the court took up other hot social issues.
I completely agree.
 
RBG will retire next..she is 'liberal' and will be replaced with the same mindset. Thomas has been mentioned but no real guarantee he will retire..so..essentially stay the same.
I do not see Thomas and Alito both making it 8 more years, but it is very possible. I see a good chance of at least one of them leaving for on reason or another.

If Cruz would have won, I believe his focus would have been to appoint judges who had a strong history of supporting 2A. Trump seems to only care about taxes, immigration, and business rights. He's had a long history of being against gun right more so before he announced he was running and from his actions while he's been president. We don't know exactly why SCOTUS isn't taking up gun related cases. Like GEM already pointed out, there's no guarantee that Trump appoints 2A supporting justice(s) should he win reelection. Matter of fact, I'm pretty certain that he'll try to appoint someone who he thinks will help lower taxes and regulations for the businesses and the upper tier tax bracket, and furthering gun rights isn't even on his radar with regards to his SCOTUS picks..
 
Last edited:
With the exception that RBG is almost assuredly winding up her career on the Court because of her continuing illnesses and advancing age I think Th Court’s composition will still be somewhat unpredictable regardless who is elected president. I believe that the composition of the Senate is the more decisive factor in the Court’s composition. The party that wins the senate majority will have the ultimate say in who gets to be on the SCOTUS bench. Is the senate and the presidency are won by one party that is a slam dunk for the president’s choice. If the opposite occurs then the President will have to contend with nomination a
 
Let's stay focused on the 2A concerns and limit our discussion to that. Yes, social, tax, regulatory and business issues dominate this administrations interests making a 2A advocate appointment unlikely, BUT a strict constitutionalist or a minimalist might provide much of the tax, regulatory, business goals and give us a strong 2A advocate.

How do we take advantage of the fact that a seat on the Supreme Court could be open soon? By identifying those judges that have the other characteristics this administration advocates as well as the 2A. If we have judges that give the administration much of what they want AND give us the 2A position we need we must identify them and push for them to be considered though our senior legislative officials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top