SCOTUS Thought Process

[ShoreShooter]

I am no attorney, but find this interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...33f0f4-cbe1-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html

Substitute "affirmative action" for "gun rights" as you read this, and consider where this leaves things.

States rights, and the ballot box as the best route for change.

The Constitution says what it says. The law says what it says.

Which I would guess is where their quandary lies on guns, and perhaps why they are ducking gun cases. The Constitution is plain. But the states are passing legislation through the political process.

This was a hard case to take up and resolve. But they steeled themselves and did so in their own time with the right case. When they are ready, they may well do so with a gun case. This may well prove to be the right slate of Judges to take it up.

 

[press1280]

I am no attorney, but find this interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...33f0f4-cbe1-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html

Substitute "affirmative action" for "gun rights" as you read this, and consider where this leaves things.

States rights, and the ballot box as the best route for change.

The Constitution says what it says. The law says what it says.

Which I would guess is where their quandary lies on guns, and perhaps why they are ducking gun cases. The Constitution is plain. But the states are passing legislation through the political process.

This was a hard case to take up and resolve. But they steeled themselves and did so in their own time with the right case. When they are ready, they may well do so with a gun case. This may well prove to be the right slate of Judges to take it up.

But it also could mean they would allow the states considerable leeway on guns (more than we'd necessarily want).
Another thing I see is that SCOTUS may be leery of overturning state constitutional amendments and ballot initiatives where the people had a direct vote. The may-issue laws, AFAIK, were all passed by elected officials(who are by and large dead or no longer in office). Any bills that come up to make them shall-issue are always stifled by committee chairs in order to protect other members of the party from making a potentially damaging vote. These deserve less respect, IMO, although legally I suppose there's no difference.

 

[ShoreShooter]

Thinking more about this ...

They said the law plainly said you cannot discriminate on race, BUT, you can via affirmative action if that's the way the citizens vote.

So they CAN say 2A says we have the right to bear arms, but that can be abridged if that's the way people vote. OR, they CAN say the plain language is you cannot abridge the right, and if you want to change it, amend the law and everything is cool.

In the end, I'm not sure this case adds as much insight as I first thought.

 

[ryan_j]

NJ's "may issue" or actually "shall issue with justifiable need" law isn't totally controlled by elected officials. The very definition of justifiable need is defined by the AG, based on court cases, primarily Siccardi.

So if the Court lets it stand, they are essentially saying that the AG can define a constitutional right, and not (even) the legislature or voters. That is NOT good.

But back to Affirmative Action - that is something completely different from a fundamental right to equal protection. AA is giving one group an advantage because they've been disadvantaged in the past (and possibly the present). What we have with justifiable need and RKBA is that ALL of the citizens are denied the right, except for a very small number (0.02% in NJ).

 

[danb]

All this ruling did is allow voters to ban a practice that was mostly already considered unconstitutional. The court had already said that affirmative action was to be used in special cases, this just allowed the voters to ban it altogether.


SCT likes to let things percolate for a long time before they rule. Even Ginsberg said that Roe v Wade came too early. Not that the court should not have eventually taken up the case, just that they should have waited for more states to lead the effort, then rule.

In other words, this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/growth-chart-of-right-to-carry/