Abramski v US cert petition ("straw purchase" for otherwise legal buyer)

[Venge]

You seem to regard the U.S Supreme Court's job as simply "applying the law" based on precedent.

So, why, in the modern SCOTUS era, are 5 Justices "applying the law" one way and 4 Justices "applying the law" another way in case after case after case?

If "applications" were neutral, every decision would be an easy 9-0 correct? How much more evidence do any of us need that SCOTUS is now a hopeless political body?

I think it's because of the whole notion of Judicial Review established in Marbury v Madison: they aren't just applying it (the law), but reviewing and interpreting it. Review and interpretation is a more subjective process than application, but the codex used is supposed to be the constitution.

Over time, as people have forgotten how to read, judges seem to not be able to understand what's written in that document, and so the interpretations and reviews drift further apart into partisan camps.

 

[fiddletown]

You seem to regard the U.S Supreme Court's job as simply "applying the law" based on precedent. ...

It's not a matter of me regarding anything. It's a matter of reality. That's how things work.

The decisions courts make will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. And past decision of courts of appeal will affect future decision of other courts.

There's nothing new or novel about this. It's been going on this way, under the Common Law, for hundreds of years before our nation was founded.

There's also nothing new about decision of courts of appeal panels being split. It happens now and has been happening for hundreds of years.

 

[Venge]

There's nothing new or novel about this. It's been going on this way, under the Common Law, for hundreds of years before our nation was founded.

There's also nothing new about decision of courts of appeal panels being split. It happens now and has been happening for hundreds of years.

This I believe. It does seem kind of ridiculous that every decision falls neatly along party lines, though.

 

[fiddletown]

I think it's because of the whole notion of Judicial Review established in Marbury v Madison: they aren't just applying it (the law), but reviewing and interpreting it. Review and interpretation is a more subjective process than application, but the codex used is supposed to be the constitution..

The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising necessarily involves interpreting and applying the law to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):

....It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each......

Judicial review effectively flowed naturally from the application of Common Law (the foundation of our legal system) principles in the natural course of the exercise of judicial power assigned to the federal courts by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Judicial review was not pulled out of the air by Marshall. Its application was necessary to the deciding of the case then before the Court. This is likely what many of the Founding Fathers would have envisioned, because many were lawyers and understood the exercise of judicial power in such terms (although Jefferson did not). So --

In its ruling in Marbury the Supreme Court was merely exercising its explicit authority given it in the Constitution to exercise judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution. In doing so and reaching its decision in Marbury it was applying established Common Law principles -- just as courts were, and are, expected to do.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

 

[Venge]

Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

You lost me here. I understood every word but that's not what we're talking about or what's going on (unless I missed something). You can't tell me that the court is being falsely blamed for a bad result while they're righteously executing their duties when I could probably predict the outcome of a case they're going to review based on the politics of each judge involved.

How could a decision possibly "comport with the law and precedent" when it's decided by popular party affiliation?

 

[fiddletown]

...It does seem kind of ridiculous that every decision falls neatly along party lines, though.

Every decision does not fall along party lines. Consider Navarette, et al v. California (Supreme Court No. 12–9490, April, 2014), a Fourth Amendment case in which Thomas wrote the majority opinion in which Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito joined. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined in the dissent written by Scalia.

 

[fiddletown]

...How could a decision possibly "comport with the law and precedent" when it's decided by popular party affiliation?

Because it's not. I've given one recent example.

 

[Venge]

Every decision does not fall along party lines. Consider Navarette, et al v. California (Supreme Court No. 12–9490, April, 2014), a Fourth Amendment case in which Thomas wrote the majority opinion in which Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito joined. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined in the dissent written by Scalia.

Fair enough... I exaggerated quite a bit...

Do you think it's happening with increasing frequency? It made the news recently with McCutcheon v FEC. I'm not saying whether I agree with the decision, but it split pretty clearly along party lines, much to the respective admiration and chagrin of partisan politicians.

It might not be significant, and I don't have the patience to do that analysis.

 

[Venge]

Because it's not. I've given one recent example.

Ok, so did I... See above ^

 

[kcbrown]

Good God. I thought I was done with your silliness when I put you on "ignore" at Calguns. I guess I'll have to ignore you here as well.

A shame, that. But it's your choice, and your loss (since I can see what you write, I can learn from that, but since you cannot see what I write, you cannot learn whatever there may be to learn from it).

 

[Rack&Roll]

Fiddletown: As much as I appreciate your brief history lesson, I will come out and say it: people like you--arrogant, Holier-Than-Thou lawyers --are the problem. All I have to do is hold up the ObamaCare Law as Exhibit A. Who in their right mind thinks thousand and thousands of pages of this gobbledygook "law" represents anything connected to the heritage of Common Law?

The word "common" was just that--words that could be understood and adhered to by the Common Man or Woman, whether or not they could read or write.

Now, every state legislature--plus the US Congress-- is infested with unethical lawyers churning out non-sensical BS that takes--wonder of wonders-- more lawyers to sort out.

I, for one, am not saying the Abramski decision is wrong because my side only got "4 votes". I'm saying the decision is wrong because an American purchased a legal product on the record and then resold his property on the record--satisfying the Government's only known and acknowledged "legal" interest--and still arrested him.

It will do no good to have the law changed to a new law, as you blithely recommend. That's because modern statist lawyer/legislators--even when we beg them--refuse to use time, distance, duration etc in the law, and instead insert words like "reasonable" or "appropriate" as definitions. Which means all modern decisions at SCOTUS are 5-4.

But so many lawyers--citing professional courtesy--won't hold other lawyers accountable for distorting laws and legality. They just make more "law" like Maryland's "Heavy Barrel (HBAR) law that has no discernible standards. And then these lawyers/legislators and their ilk stand back to wait for criminally charged clients to call. No es problema!

For them, the practice of law is now a tricks-and-traps industry from top to bottom. OK, hold on, let me tap that Ignore Button because someone's feelings are hurt for sure…PING…there you go...

 

[OLM-Medic]

The court got it right. Its what the law is and there was evidence and statements that show he violated the law. Is going after this kind of person B.S.? Sure, but the law is what it is until its changed.

What to learn from this? Don't buy a gun for ANYONE except yourself. Don't buy a gun to resell either.

IT'S DA LAW.

 

[fiddletown]

Fair enough... I exaggerated quite a bit...

And here's another interesting example for your collection. Consider the recent case of United States v. Castleman (Supreme Court No. 12–1371, March, 2014). That was a very interesting lining up.

The Court ruled unanimously that a Tennessee misdemeanor battery conviction was, under the facts and the applicable Tennessee statute, a domestic violence conviction for purposes of disqualifying the offender from purchasing/possessing firearms under federal law.

Sotomayor, J., wrote the majority opinion in which Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, joined. Scalia, filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Alito, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas joined.

...Do you think it's happening with increasing frequency?...

It might be. I haven't done an analysis, and I don't think we can just go on feelings. We'd need to actually examine the numbers and trends. But I do definitely feel that things are getting more contentious and polarized. It's harder to find common ground.

Fiddletown: As much as I appreciate your brief history lesson, I will come out and say it: people like you--lawyers--are the problem...

The usual rantings of one who doesn't know anything and doesn't do anything.

The practice of law is now a tricks-and-traps industry from top to bottom. OK, hold on, let me tap that Ignore Button because someone's feelings are hurt for sure…PING…there you go...

Nah, doesn't hurt my feeling. I've been listening to that kind of drivel for the thirty years I practiced (retired in 2007). And during that time I've materially protected and furthered the interests of real clients.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Nah, doesn't hurt my feeling. I've been listening to that kind of drivel for the thirty years I practiced (retired in 2007). And during that time I've materially protected and furthered the interests of real clients.

Golly, you know cops say hookers say the same darn thing…

 

[fiddletown]

Golly, you know cops say hookers say the same darn thing…

No, I didn't know that. I guess you know hookers better than I do.

 

[eruby]

fiddletown
Junior Member


Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 18

I wonder if fiddletown wears flowers in his/her hair?

Abramski and his cohort were dumbasses for the check beforehand. I doubt this would have happened absent the check, but who can say for sure.

The Government is NOT your friend.

A full gun ban and eradication of guns is indeed there endgame.

I like pie.

 

[Brooklyn]

By that logic, it has always been a political body.

Bingo. It was ever so. They tend to be one generation or two generations out of phase. They nearly always consider the implications of its constitutional decisions base on its group assessment of the social impact. This is even more pronounced among liberal justices. Kilo was prime example-- some justices thought that eliminating blight was a public purpose and eviscerated property rights.. Some justices think fighting terrorism justifies the evisceration of the 4a. And so on.

There is an now entire cottage industry dedicated to grooming judges for elevation based on party affiliation and their willingness to put their thumb on one side of the scale of the other, and while this is new, it is the result of the 'other political branches' being in stalemate.


Courts only defer to the legislature on controversial issues then they agree with the policy -- the rest of the time its hit or miss. Roberts knows this, and he knows what it is doing to the courts credibility -- but his solution is to duck issues... The o- care decision was a cop out.. and it will haunt us -- there are no longer any practical limits on the power of government because the taxing power is nearly absolute

The Con con has long been the only way out--- the rest is noise. It may wait until the crisis but its a done deal..

 

[pcfixer]

Progressives taught that stringent restrictions on government power were no longer necessary to protect liberty, since human nature and science had advanced greatly during the 19th century.
Progressives did not believe that individuals are endowed with inalienable rights by a Creator; rather, they believed that rights are determined by social expediency and bestowed by the government.
In conjunction with this new theory of rights, Progressivism holds that government must be able to adapt to ever-changing historical circumstances.

..

 

[ericoak]

The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising necessarily involves interpreting and applying the law to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):

​

Aka the Supreme Court decided that it had the authority to reject any law passed by Congress or any action taken by the executive.

Kind of like when Dick Cheney decided Dick Cheney was the best guy for Vice-President.

 

[Brooklyn]

The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising necessarily involves interpreting and applying the law to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):

​

Judicial review effectively flowed naturally from the application of Common Law (the foundation of our legal system) principles in the natural course of the exercise of judicial power assigned to the federal courts by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Judicial review was not pulled out of the air by Marshall. Its application was necessary to the deciding of the case then before the Court. This is likely what many of the Founding Fathers would have envisioned, because many were lawyers and understood the exercise of judicial power in such terms (although Jefferson did not). So --

In its ruling in Marbury the Supreme Court was merely exercising its explicit authority given it in the Constitution to exercise judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution. In doing so and reaching its decision in Marbury it was applying established Common Law principles -- just as courts were, and are, expected to do.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

Can you explain how a right invented by the court has more protection than an explicit right? Or why enerated powers is a dead letter in the law? Or why is OK to disregard precedent when it conflicts with your agenda. I can.


The claim that courts do not make policy is absurd on its face.. indeed that is exactly what case law is.

The best predictor of the result of a controversial case is the effect on the social policy most favored by the majority of the court.

This is why much court advocacy is truly ad hominem in the original meaning..

Courts make policy today.. they always did. If logic were the guide there would be no need for diverisity on the court. Math and logic are not maters opinion.

The court will give you a plessy if plessy is needed for the times.. it will give you a Roe if Roe is needed.. This is why the left lobies the court.

Of course when the left has an issue with a 5-4 decision its honorable disent but when the right does its recatonary hate speech. No sale..

The court is not now, and never has been, apolitical. Time to feel the heat Roberts court ... the peasants are not buying the act..