SCOTUS Gun Case Denials Signal Conservative Justices Don’t Trust Roberts With The Second Amendment

The Federalist ^ | June 17, 2020 | Lawrence Keane

[drdirt333]

These gun cases all flow from Scalia’s Heller opinion. So brilliant, the opinion lays out the original intent and then brilliantly makes the argument that words have meaning. It’s not controversial to read “ not be abridged” and assume an absolute right.
But the end of Scalia’s opinion concedes some reasonable restrictions will be permissible. What did he expect? A wave of gun restrivtion cases grew.
Ok, that’s fine. Thomas couldn’t criticize Scalia so he framed it as Scalia layed out a frame work that needs further clarification.
Ok, thats right, I buy that. All the subsequent cases have a standard test. “ does this legislation substantially abridge the right or not. Period full stop.
But as these current crop is want to do, they write anything in . Thats legislating from the bench.
Had Scalia ended his “words have plain meaning and abridged means just that”. Restrictions be damned.

[lee martell]

I never heard that before. A possible “Epstein” connection!

I thought you were going to bring up the possibility that Roberts two adopted children were obtained in some illegal manner. This, even if true, seems forgivable. Some wives will do anything to create the family they want to have.
Some men too. But a possible ‘Epstein’ connection?
That is a horse of a different color! Although some do get away with it. Especially if you’re a Democrat. Just ask Senator Bob Menendez about it.

[Steven W.]

As I recall the “John Roberts” on Epstein’s logs 1) was not him but somebody else 2) was from one state to another and didn’t go to the Island.

However, between his gay youth and illegally adopted children, the Chief Justice was beyond compromised, exactly as the Deep State wanted him.

I wouldn’t trust him to take out my garbage.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Trump needs to find out whatever it is the obama junta has on Roberts, and confront him with it - demanding his resignation in exchange for silence.

[Steven W.]

[marktwain]

In the Supreme Court decision a controversial sentence is said to have been added at the instigation of Justice Stevens and the insistence of Justice Kennedy:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[Lockbar]

As Rush said yesterday, years ago when Roberts was nominated, a D.C.insider told Rush not to get too happy-— “Roberts is more interested in reading the Washington Post style section than anything else. To me,..the rumors are confirmed. The SWAMP certainly has “something” on him.

[Joe Boucher]

Roberts and his wife illegally adopted a foreign child.
He was called on it and that is why he supported obammy care.
Probably still using it against his sorry worthless ass

[bantam]

+1

[bantam]

Most definitely this!!!!!!

[E Pluribus Bellum]

That means the 2020 election will put the direction of the Supreme Court back into focus, just as the 2016 election did.

That was supposed to be the last election but the GOP fscrewed it up again. As always. FUGOP.

[paulcissa]

Roberts is compromised. To me that has been evident since the Obamacare ruling.

You nailed it!

[AAABEST]

I agree.

[familyop]

We need a good judge with respect to the Second Amendment with next nominee. No compromises, especially not someone who favors firearms possession for criminals while supporting jurisdictions that want to outlaw modern sporting rifles (so-called assault weapons). A big no to Barrett. We need another man like Thomas and Kavanaugh.

[ontap]

We have to suffer this asshole until Ruthy “retires”...if you get my drift!!! !!!!

[Still Thinking]

Interestingly, the liberals don’t consider Roberts a safe vote either, or they’d have granted cert.