Posted on 06/27/2019 2:37:56 AM PDT by SMGFan
The Supreme Court is struggling with precedent — and that could have big implications for future cases, with liberals on the side of holding the line and conservatives on the other.
AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:
Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down its remaining decisions. Over the past two weeks alone, it will have decided some 24 major cases. Nina Totenberg, NPR's legal affairs correspondent, has been burning the midnight oil to cover all this. She joins us now. Welcome to the studio, Nina.
NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Thanks.
CORNISH: Let's just start with today. What did the court do that was important?
TOTENBERG: Well, Audie, I promise you this is not boring. The justices spend a total of 75 pages and 4 opinions, including a passionate and sometimes snarky minority opinion from Justice Neil Gorsuch, and it's all about - (imitating drum roll), drum roll - how agencies enforce their own rules. There's this long line of cases that dates back three quarters of a century, and these decisions tell lower court judges that they're generally supposed to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its own rules.
Now, for decades, some conservatives have been gunning for this agency deference rule. They see it as the ultimate representation of the administrative state or in the view of some government bureaucracy run amok. But today, the court, by a 5-to-4 vote, upheld the agency deference doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority reaffirmed the importance of deferring to agency expertise. But she also limited the deference in specific ways. What emerges, she said, is a doctrine not quite so tame as some might hope but not nearly so menacing as they might fear.
CORNISH: And it looks like the fifth and decisive vote came from Chief Justice John Roberts and that he joined the court's more liberal-leaning justices. Can you talk about that?
TOTENBERG: Well, even administrative law nerds noticed that first. Here's Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler.
Anybody have statistics for how often Roberts sided with the libs?
That is....killing babies in the womb aka murder....was not accepted before Roe vs Wade.
not sure where to search for that in an easy for but ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Court#List_of_Roberts_Court_opinions
The founders put restrictions on government, not the freedoms of individuals. Lefties, libs, progressives deeply desire to reverse that discriptive.
They make holding the liberal line as just, moral and imperative to the survival of America. STRUGGLE? no! a necessity yes!
Does that mean they aren’t going to take up the New York State rifle and pistol association case?
Bad decisions, preserved and sustained, do not make good law.
Dred Scott and Roe suffice to indicate that precedent can require review.
Korematsu (American Japanese detention) remains precedent, and should, in accord with Totenberg’s fealty to settled bad decisions.
They are picking the cases now that they will hear next term. Don't know if the above is on the docket for it. Do you have a case name?
Just found it:
18-280 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. V. CITY OF NEW YORK
According to the SCOTUS site, they’re hearing the case in October.
QUESTION PRESENTED:New York City prohibits its residents from possessing a handgun without a license, and the only license the City makes available to most residents allows its holder to possess her handgun only in her home or en route to one of seven shooting ranges within the city. The City thus bans its residents from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits-even if the handgun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition, and even if the owner seeks to transport it only to a second home for the core constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense, or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting range to hone its safe and effective use.
The City asserts that its transport ban promotes public safety by limiting the presence of handguns on city streets. But the City put forth no empirical evidence that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in a container separate from its ammunition, poses a meaningful risk to public safety. Moreover, even if there were such a risk, the City’s restriction poses greater safety risks by encouraging residents who are leaving town to leave their handguns behind in vacant homes, and it serves only to increase the frequency of handgun transport within city limits by forcing many residents to use an in-city range rather than more convenient ranges elsewhere.
The question presented is:
Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-638
Thanks. That one will be interesting to check out the oral arguments once it’s been heard.
Stephen Stamboleah (sp?) was on one of my firearms podcasts talking about his arguments.
One was:
“Does the first amendment only apply in the home? Does the fourth amendment mean, to them, that police can search everything on your person the second that you leave your house? Can law enforcement capture you on the way to work and torture you?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.