SCOTUS to act on 2 Gun Cases

[Aim1]

Not good with only 8 judges currently on SCOTUS.







http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/supreme-court-gun-control-connecticut-heller/

Supreme Court to act on gun ownership cases

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

Updated 5:59 AM ET, Tue June 14, 2016


Washington (CNN)Days after the worst mass shooting in the United States, the Supreme Court is poised to act on two cases highlighting the raging debate over what types of guns and ammunition may be banned and who should have the right to possess firearms.

Justices will meet behind closed doors this week to determine whether or not to take up a constitutional challenge to a Connecticut ban of certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The court is also poised to rule by the end of the month on the case of a Maine man who says that his prior misdemeanor under state law for domestic violence should not have caused him to lose his right to possess a firearm under federal law.

 

[tomturkey]

Wait until Hillary gets to appoint the 5th judge to the court. It will be an anti gun judge for sure. At least with only 4 it should/will be a 2 to 2 tie so we should not lose. With her in charge get ready to bend over as we are going to take it where it hurts.

 

[TimSr]

Wait until Hillary gets to appoint the 5th judge to the court. It will be an anti gun judge for sure. At least with only 4 it should/will be a 2 to 2 tie so we should not lose. With her in charge get ready to bend over as we are going to take it where it hurts.

There are 9 Justices, and in a tie, the lower court ruling stands, which means every anti-gun decision the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals makes will stand, rather than be overturned, which normally happens almost half their decisions.

 

[Aim1]

There are 9 Justices, and in a tie, the lower court ruling stands, which means every anti-gun decision the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals makes will stand, rather than be overturned, which normally happens almost half their decisions.

This.



If it's a tie in the misdemeanor domestic case citizens will lose their 2nd amendment rights due to a misdemeanor conviction which is wrong.

 

[MADDOG]

Everyone needs to VOTE.

 

[yugorpk]

Everyone needs to VOTE.

If EVERYONE votes you'll have Democrats until the end of time.

 

[SSN Vet]

Pinch nose, cross fingers, pull lever for Trump ... and hope he doesn't appoint his lib sis to the bench.

 

[Red Wind]

Trump put out the list of SCOTUS potentials. His liberal sister is not on it. Stop worrying. Trump gets elected, you got a Conservative coming up to bat for the 2A.

Overthinking is bad mojo.

 

[Haxby]

Trump, in his book, The America We Deserve:
“... I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

 

[harrygunner]

Not speaking of how SCOTUS might vote on these cases, just a reminder -

The article and some here forgot the Court was closer to being unanimous on the Second Amendment being an individual right. They were 5 to 4 on Heller. Underneath that decision, they pretty much agreed on it being an individual right.

Breyer stated the entire court agreed the Amendment protects an individual right. But then he and Steven distorted "individual" into being an individual inside particular groups.

So, 7 to 2 might be more accurate than 5 to 4 on it being an individual right.

 

[Acera]

We need Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court.

However Trump will guarantee that hillary gets at least 4 years to fill it with leftist judges.

 

[Red Wind]

Harrygunner, you are correct. 7 to 2 it was. And Haxby,Clinton is your alternative. Many minds change over the years. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Once was enough!

Acera is a pessimist. Hillary will never be POTUS.

 

[threefeathers]

i agree with Red Wind. We MUST hold our nose and vote for Trump.

 

[Red Wind]

Thank you, Threefeathers. I am sending out a painless clothespin via Amazon Prime! Look for It!

 

[barnbwt]

So, 7 to 2 might be more accurate than 5 to 4 on it being an individual right.

The problem is that Kennedy, who sided with the majority any accepted the fact the RKBA is a civil right (and not just a delegation of state authority phrased like one), has clearly had a heaping case of Buyer's Remorse over exactly what the implications of that have been in recent years. I truly believe he and some of the others who agreed on it being a civil right, didn't think we would actually go on and demand it be treated as one in practice.

That's why brass-tacks issues like AWBs and CC which fly directly in the face of their rulings have not been addressed aggressively, as the court would surely do if defied similarly in just about any other area of contention. I'd say more like 5-3 against at this point, assuming no one is leaning on Roberts this time.

Trump's done slightly less than jack to earn the support of gun owners thus far, but he has it, having defeated everyone who had actually earned it, so long as he stays on the straight & narrow (and then some) going forward. It darn sure shouldn't be couched as 'unconditional' support by anyone. His policy papers are pleasing fluff, his court nominees sufficiently palatable for the most part, and his failure to backslide into anti-gun stances following a major terrorist attack is very encouraging*. He has moved from triple to double secret probation in my eyes.

TCB

*even if his actions surrounding his address were needlessly off-putting, which I won't totally hold against him since that appears to be what 'works' this election

 

[harrygunner]

I agree, there's a chance the court has shifted even within the same group of judges. There are certainly historical examples of SCOTUS supporting dishonorable positions. So, there are risks with their taking the cases.

According to the article, this step is to decide if they will take the cases. It will be a while before there's a ruling.

Trump's nominations have to be better than Hillary's. I suspect most of his outrageous ideas will be ignored, he'll make some business deals that make him richer. But less harm will be inflicted than what Hillary would create.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Another Roberts sellout on the way.

 

[Aim1]

Posts: 737
I agree, there's a chance the court has shifted even within the same group of judges. There are certainly historical examples of SCOTUS supporting dishonorable positions. So, there are risks with their taking the cases.

According to the article, this step is to decide if they will take the cases. It will be a while before there's a ruling.

Trump's nominations have to be better than Hillary's. I suspect most of his outrageous ideas will be ignored, he'll make some business deals that make him richer. But less harm will be inflicted than what Hillary would create.

Decide to grant certori on 1 case and rule on the other case that they've already heard.