Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[KevinK]

Media consensus is that Roberts will fold like a cheap suit and punt once again.

Wait, are you talking about Larry Hogan?

 

[Decoy]

From MSM, posted on multiple sites.

Supreme Court shows little appetite for expanding gun rights in arguments over repealed New York regulation

The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to deliver a major win for gun-rights activists during arguments in the first significant Second Amendment case the justices had heard in nearly a decade.

Some of the court's conservatives, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, seemed eager to use the case to address the reach of the Second Amendment.

But it appeared likely that Chief Justice John Roberts would side with the court's liberals to dismiss the matter altogether as moot.

 

[abean4187]

Welp, it is what it is for right now. The case is over so we'll have to wait for June to see what comes of it. Even if it does get mooted, we still have a bunch of court cases in the pipeline and hopefully Republicans can retain the Senate and President after 2020 and get a 6-3 court before 2024. Gotta remain positive and keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Boxcab]

Media consensus is that Roberts will fold like a cheap suit and punt once again.

I think that generally the Justice's already have their minds made up, prior to the hearing. They use the hearing as a last chance opportunity for the counsels to change their minds, and/or to solidify the Justice's thinking. So the line of questions serve that purpose.

It sounds like they wanted to put a final lid on the Mootness issue, allowing time to make sure all arguments got aired and put to rest. I'd be surprised if the case is mooted.

If Roberts does fold, there are 4 (5?) other cases que'd up. He will not be avoiding the task of addressing the 2A. He knows that. It's going to happen now, or real soon.




.

 

[danb]

Roberts siding with the liberals helps Trumps re-election. Many people voted for Trump solely based on Supreme Court nominations. Roberts siding with liberals keeps the issue alive.

 

[ChrisD]

I think they are looking for a way to rule on this and make the other cases being held go away all together.

Have no faith in the court, that’s just my opinion.

Media consensus is that Roberts will fold like a cheap suit and punt once again.

^^^^^^ my thoughts also ^^^^^^

 

[Kharn]

Media consensus is that Roberts will fold like a cheap suit and punt once again.

The media also want to influence the decision as much as possible.

 

[danb]

The MSM is often wrong about the Supreme Court and reads too much into the "what if" hypotheticals at oral argument.

 

[aireyc]

I was at orals. Left no more sure than when I walked in. The best part was when Alito more or less got NYC to concede that the Second extends outside the home.

 

[Vic]

I personally think they have something on Roberts. Maybe he and Epstein were friends. Anyway, what a disappointment he is.
V

 

[Blacksmith101]

I think that generally the Justice's already have their minds made up, prior to the hearing. They use the hearing as a last chance opportunity for the counsels to change their minds, and/or to solidify the Justice's thinking. So the line of questions serve that purpose.

It sounds like they wanted to put a final lid on the Mootness issue, allowing time to make sure all arguments got aired and put to rest. I'd be surprised if the case is mooted.

If Roberts does fold, there are 4 (5?) other cases que'd up. He will not be avoiding the task of addressing the 2A. He knows that. It's going to happen now, or real soon.
.

He might decide it is not moot because some of those cases open bigger worm cans. Keep the simple case or the bite may be bigger.

 

[Inigoes]

Media consensus is that Roberts will fold like a cheap suit and punt once again.

Even the NYT is asking the big question:

The larger question in the case, one the court may not address, is whether lower courts have been faithfully applying its key precedent, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided by a 5-to-4 vote in 2008. The decision revolutionized Second Amendment jurisprudence by identifying an individual right to own guns, but it ruled only that the right applied inside the home, for self-defense.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/se...ut-at-the-supreme-court/ar-BBXED5S?ocid=ientp

 

[Inigoes]

Transcript is up

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf

 

[Abacab]

Transcript is up

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf

I need the audio to listen to while I drive for a bit.

Hopefully that gets up soon.

 

[danb]

After about 1/2 way through the transcript I conclude Sotomayor is a bloody obnoxious idiot. So far she has pretty much dominated the questioning, and her questions' tone seem more angry and irritated than anything else.

 

[fred55]

Just saw a bit on the hearing on Fox News; talking head stated about 200 anti-gun present and 3-4? pro-gun? They didn’t specify if it was 3-4 or 3-4 hundred Fox sucks. fred55

 

[Occam]

Having been there: I'd say 200 Bloombots is about right. More like a dozen (overt) Deplorables keeping it interesting.

 

[E.Shell]

Just saw a bit on the hearing on Fox News; talking head stated about 200 anti-gun present and 3-4? pro-gun? They didn’t specify if it was 3-4 or 3-4 hundred Fox sucks. fred55

Not surprising... Just more slanted yellow journalism. 4,000 protested the 2013 GSA fiasco, about 140 showed up to support it, while the Baltimore Sun reported that "over 4,000 people, for and against, were present...".

Just keep believing they're stupid...

 

[Boxcab]

After about 1/2 way through the transcript I conclude Sotomayor is a bloody obnoxious idiot. So far she has pretty much dominated the questioning, and her questions' tone seem more angry and irritated than anything else.

She was working hard to get Clement to say the case was moot. I think she protests too much and is signaling that there might be enough Justices that think the case is not mooted, that she was trying everything she could to change opinions. This may be good for us.





.

 

[danb]

She was working hard to get Clement to say the case was moot. I think she protests too much and is signaling that there might be enough Justices that think the case is not mooted, that she was trying everything she could to change opinions. This may be good for us.

.

This, too, is what I thought.