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

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

“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.

 

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.

 

Very well put.