Posted on 06/28/2018 2:50:43 PM PDT by Ken H
The retiring justice seems to have been a crucial obstacle to hearing Second Amendment cases.
Although Anthony Kennedy joined all three decisions in which the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, his retirement probably means the Court will be less reluctant to define the contours of that right. In the decade since the Court first ruled that a law was inconsistent with the Second Amendment, it has passed up almost every opportunity to resolve lingering questions about which forms of gun control are constitutional. It seems clear that Kennedy bears much of the responsibility for that reticence.
It takes four votes to grant Supreme Court review. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, are on record as criticizing the Court's neglect of the Second Amendment. On three occasions, Thomas has written dissents arguing that the Court should have agreed to hear a challenge to a gun control law. Last year, in a case involving California's prohibitive restrictions on carrying guns in public, Gorsuch added his name to one those dissents.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
That depends on if the person is a gun owner or from family of gun owners. Also, do they give the 2nd amendment equal weight with the others AND how do they interpret. Do they agree with Heller and if not how so?
I also just read that Jeff Flake will not obstruct any SCOTUS nominee. It might be worthy of its own thread.
https://ntknetwork.com/flake-wont-hold-up-trump-scotus-nominee-over-tariffs/
It also means that anti-gun laws passed at the state level that the SC declined to hear are more likely to be heard as it takes 4 justices to agree to hear a case and Kennedy isn’t one who voted to hear them.
Winning!
The most likely obstruction will come from Collins and/or Murkowski if they feel Roe v. Wade is threatened.
One on Trump’s list, Diane Sykes, has already overturned a gun control law as violating the 2A. The only problem with her is she’s 60. It would be nice to have someone in their 40s.
Also, Justice Thomas is quite upset that the Court hasn’t been protecting the 2nd amendment so I’m sure he’s pushing to get something on the docket for SC review.
Just some general thoughts not necessarily related to gun rights. Kagan showed a drift to the center this term. My guess is that Trump will appoint a solid conservative and Kagan will react with a hard left turn.
I think it would be a hoot, if a new female justice were to befriend Kagan and turn her a bit.
“”””The most likely obstruction will come from Collins and/or Murkowski if they feel Roe v. Wade is threatened.”””””
The abortion crowd is already going full postal over that one. This is going to be an unbelievably nasty fight. Whoever the candidate is I hope they have a steel spine.
“The most likely obstruction will come from Collins and/or Murkowski if they feel Roe v. Wade is threatened.”
Yup - can’t be a real woman unless you engage in premeditated murder of your own child.
And selling the body parts of their just brutally murdered child on the black market is a Constitutional right as well.
That is breaking news IMO.
Going to see if DU picked it up yet.
I would dearly love to see a case regarding some incredibly restrictive state statutes. Being originally from NJ (thank GOD I’m in Texas now), I am particularly sensitive to, and ticked off about, the restrictions that states put on magazine capacity (it used to be 15 in NJ, and now it is 10), and the outright banning of certain rifles and other firearms. How is there Equal Protection of the Law if I can legally own (for example) a metal box with a spring inside of it that is designed to hold 30 rounds of 5.56 mm Winchester ammunition, but if I move 10 feet in a particular direction and cross an imaginary line that is in this nation, that would expose me to a penalty of 5 years in prison, and loss of my right to vote and own firearms...forever?????
I’d also like to see the entire 1934 NFA challenged again (it hasn’t been since the 1939 U.S. v. Miller case). It is blatantly unconstitutional, by prohibiting the keeping or bearing of arms which are useful for militia purposes (I speak here specifically of full auto firearms) without the payment of a tax - and federal law now PROHIBITS the collection of this tax for any full auto firearm made subsequent to May 18, 1986. This needs to be overturned, so as to restore the proper balance of force between the People on the one hand, and the government that the People decided to create on the other.
Find a potential Justice who can rule properly on these issues, and you’ll have one who is an Originalist in the Scalia mold on virtually every other issue.
(In 2024, if a Dem wins, Thomas and Alito both hit their 80s during that term, and it could go back to 4-1-4 again pretty easily. I'm trying to soothe my Lefty friends with those little tidbits.)
Kagan seemed to respond more to Scalia. Of course I’d take another Scalia right now. But with the absence of Scalia and Kennedy she might be more inclined to follow the Chief Justice.
Thanks for the observation. I haven’t followed her close enough to know this, and it was interesting to me.
LOL
You know, I’m sure they’re think right now just how to word it...
“:^)
“The most likely obstruction will come from Collins and/or Murkowski if they feel Roe v. Wade is threatened.’
Wanted to see what LIES the Enemedia was promoting, tonight. That was the FIRST thing out of Collins’ mouth when I watched NBC this evening!
OMG! How can ABORTION be your platform? If you stop and think about it, if the Dems hadn’t given the Green Light to their Constituents to MURDER their future VOTERS in the Womb...would all of the current Illegal Aliens = Dem Voters cr@p, hold ANY water?
What a bunch of evil, self-serving monsters! But, have fun explaining your justification of abortion to St. Peter when you arrive at the Pearly Gates!
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.