Freidman v. Highland Park (AWB)

fidelity said:

The Times can hardly contain its glee on the SC passing on Friedman ...

Highland Park a template for further restrictions ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/we-can-regulate-guns-at-the-local-level-t.html



Division in the conservative ranks at the SC (by Linda Greenhouse) ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/guns-and-thunder-on-the-supreme-courts-right.html

Click to expand...

Linda Greenhouse ..is a gossip columnist for the court and has been for decades..

If she serves any other purpose it eludes me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/u...ons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?ref=us&_r=1

In dissent on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, accused the court of abdicating its responsibility to enforce the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the Heller case, which was decided by a 5 to 4 vote.)“Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles,” Justice Thomas wrote, referring, he said, to “modern sporting rifles.”
“The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”

Click to expand...

and

Since 2010, the Supreme Court has turned away appeals in any number of Second Amendment challenges to gun control laws. Monday’s move was telling, Professor Winkler said.
“The court’s action will encourage gun control advocates to push for bans on assault weapons,” he said. “This is one of the items at the top of the gun control agenda. Now advocates have less to fear from the courts on this issue.”

Click to expand...

sets the tone for some time now doesn't it!

Brooklyn said:

Linda Greenhouse ..is a gossip columnist for the court and has been for decades..

If she serves any other purpose it eludes me.

Click to expand...

Other than selling pages to the outside world, it's the influence that she's purported to have within the court ... particularly on conservatives who are sensitive to their press ... having not experienced this sort of attention in their previous posts.

It goes without saying, that semi-automatic firearms are in common use per the courts Heller decision. And the fact that they were not included within the NFA of 1934 clearly indicates they are not within the realm of being " dangerous and unusual ". With that said, and assuming the need for a split among the circuit courts was not part of the equation....Seems ludicrous, as no split would mean there's no deprivation of the right? Couldn't they have felt that there was a need,...more of a need, for an actual damage under Friedman's 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? He could still exercise his right, just not with firearms he believes to be protected. So he really wasn't deprived of the 2nd Amendments core right to self-defense.

fidelity said:

Other than selling pages to the outside world, it's the influence that she's purported to have within the court ... particularly on conservatives who are sensitive to their press ... having not experienced this sort of attention in their previous posts.

Click to expand...

Purported yes I have ..heard it all before.. Don't buy it.

It sells papers..what sways the court if anything is law review..that's where they will be judged by history..

Just rember... She exists to sell papers..i

Today the times is a tabloid anyway..

"the greenhouse effect"

Brooklyn said:

Linda Greenhouse ..is a gossip columnist for the court and has been for decades..

If she serves any other purpose it eludes me.

Click to expand...

...refers to the apparent desire of some Justices to need to see their name in the paper, favorably spoken by Ms Greenhouse. She's clearly coyly smarmy and lovey-dovey to Roberts in this latest...and if she truly has been writing about SCOTUS for years, then she displays her ignorance, or worse outright spin describing Thomas and Scalia, thus: "does underscore something important about the court’s current dynamic: the chasm on the conservative flank between, on the one hand, two justices who embrace all-out judicial activism and, on the other, those who are willing to wait and see."

Nevertheless she makes a good point-nearly lost amongst the rest of the blather- more along the line of what I think I've heard Esquappellate and other experienced court watchers say-
"the fact is that none of these cases met the court’s ordinary criteria for review. No federal appeals court has interpreted the Heller decision as providing constitutional protection for the ownership of military-style semiautomatic weapons."

On the other hand, Adam Liptak, her successor as court reporter, is not so circumspect and happy to spin in his NYT article: "part of a series of signals from the Supreme Court giving at least tacit approval to even quite strict gun control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them."

And teeing up Prof Winkler at UCLA, usually balanced, but showing his glee now, “One has to wonder,” he (winkler) said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”

Winkler doubles down, by giving the final quote to the reliably reprehensible lying sacks of moonbat dung at Brady: “The American people have had enough of gun violence and, with the exception of Justices Thomas and Scalia, in this case, the Supreme Court sided with them,”

I dunno- maybe Justice Roberts has sort of lost his way, in his reputed desire for comity, for his legacy, sort of a Rodney King kind of "cant we just all get along" kangaroo court. Or maybe he has just lost his mojo, or lost the bubble, as we old pilots say, as to honoring his oath to the law.

With the left wing justices happy to rewrite the law at the bench (hint- Ms Greenhouse, thats what judicial activism means, dear), and as Justice Ginsberg has said, gone all group-think-as-one-in-their-writings, welll that leaves the rock-jawed Thomas and Scalia sticking grimly to stare decisis and originalism (hint, Ms Greenhouse - that is the opposite of activism, you old fool),

while the moderate middle has gone all Oliver Wendell Holmes-ish squishy- "if the Congress wants the country to go to hell, we shall let them"- rather than to honor their oath, to interpret the law, on the law, and serve as the Constitutional purpose for which the Judiciary was intended- a check and balance, vs follow brainwashing of the NYT-DC Elite Who Know Whats Best for the Little People, or suckups in the NYT or anywhere else.

Peaceful John said:

At the time it was generally reported that the Soviets lost.

Click to expand...

Right, they would be the 4th Gen army, losing to the 3rd Gen Afghans. Or would that be 3rd Gen Soviets and 2nd Gen Afghans.

Peaceful John said:

At the time it was generally reported that the Soviets lost.

Click to expand...

The Afghans successfully held their defensive positions, and their offensive strikes proved to be a sufficient nuisance that, between the two, the Soviets decided they'd had enough, and packed up and left.

But the Soviets weren't really fighting to win. If they were, they'd have used everything in their arsenal to do so, including chemical, biological, and even nuclear weaponry.

In a fight for the very survival of the government, you can bet that all the stops will be pulled out.

Worse, what we're talking about here requires not merely that defensive positions be held. It requires military victory. It requires the opposition to surrender. Anything less than that means that the (at that point) tyrannical government will remain in power.


What is it about the military requirements for that kind of campaign that people here don't get???

When has a 3rd gen army achieved offensive military victory over a 4th gen one, resulting in the surrender of the 4th gen one?

rlc2 said:

...refers to the apparent desire of some Justices to need to see their name in the paper, favorably spoken by Ms Greenhouse. She's clearly coyly smarmy and lovey-dovey to Roberts in this latest...and if she truly has been writing about SCOTUS for years, then she displays her ignorance, or worse outright spin describing Thomas and Scalia, thus: "does underscore something important about the court’s current dynamic: the chasm on the conservative flank between, on the one hand, two justices who embrace all-out judicial activism and, on the other, those who are willing to wait and see."

Nevertheless she makes a good point-nearly lost amongst the rest of the blather- more along the line of what I think I've heard Esquappellate and other experienced court watchers say-
"the fact is that none of these cases met the court’s ordinary criteria for review. No federal appeals court has interpreted the Heller decision as providing constitutional protection for the ownership of military-style semiautomatic weapons."

On the other hand, Adam Liptak, her successor as court reporter, is not so circumspect and happy to spin in his NYT article: "part of a series of signals from the Supreme Court giving at least tacit approval to even quite strict gun control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them."

And teeing up Prof Winkler at UCLA, usually balanced, but showing his glee now, “One has to wonder,” he (winkler) said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”

Winkler doubles down, by giving the final quote to the reliably reprehensible lying sacks of moonbat dung at Brady: “The American people have had enough of gun violence and, with the exception of Justices Thomas and Scalia, in this case, the Supreme Court sided with them,”

I dunno- maybe Justice Roberts has sort of lost his way, in his reputed desire for comity, for his legacy, sort of a Rodney King kind of "cant we just all get along" kangaroo court. Or maybe he has just lost his mojo, or lost the bubble, as we old pilots say, as to honoring his oath to the law.

With the left wing justices happy to rewrite the law at the bench (hint- Ms Greenhouse, thats what judicial activism means, dear), and as Justice Ginsberg has said, gone all group-think-as-one-in-their-writings, welll that leaves the rock-jawed Thomas and Scalia sticking grimly to stare decisis and originalism (hint, Ms Greenhouse - that is the opposite of activism, you old fool),

while the moderate middle has gone all Oliver Wendell Holmes-ish squishy- "if the Congress wants the country to go to hell, we shall let them"- rather than to honor their oath, to interpret the law, on the law, and serve as the Constitutional purpose for which the Judiciary was intended- a check and balance, vs follow brainwashing of the NYT-DC Elite Who Know Whats Best for the Little People, or suckups in the NYT or anywhere else.

Click to expand...

Great summary.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

rlc2 said:

...refers to the apparent desire of some Justices to need to see their name in the paper, favorably spoken by Ms Greenhouse. She's clearly coyly smarmy and lovey-dovey to Roberts in this latest...and if she truly has been writing about SCOTUS for years, then she displays her ignorance, or worse outright spin describing Thomas and Scalia, thus: "does underscore something important about the court’s current dynamic: the chasm on the conservative flank between, on the one hand, two justices who embrace all-out judicial activism and, on the other, those who are willing to wait and see."

Nevertheless she makes a good point-nearly lost amongst the rest of the blather- more along the line of what I think I've heard Esquappellate and other experienced court watchers say-
"the fact is that none of these cases met the court’s ordinary criteria for review. No federal appeals court has interpreted the Heller decision as providing constitutional protection for the ownership of military-style semiautomatic weapons."

On the other hand, Adam Liptak, her successor as court reporter, is not so circumspect and happy to spin in his NYT article: "part of a series of signals from the Supreme Court giving at least tacit approval to even quite strict gun control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them."

And teeing up Prof Winkler at UCLA, usually balanced, but showing his glee now, “One has to wonder,” he (winkler) said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”

Winkler doubles down, by giving the final quote to the reliably reprehensible lying sacks of moonbat dung at Brady: “The American people have had enough of gun violence and, with the exception of Justices Thomas and Scalia, in this case, the Supreme Court sided with them,”

I dunno- maybe Justice Roberts has sort of lost his way, in his reputed desire for comity, for his legacy, sort of a Rodney King kind of "cant we just all get along" kangaroo court. Or maybe he has just lost his mojo, or lost the bubble, as we old pilots say, as to honoring his oath to the law.

With the left wing justices happy to rewrite the law at the bench (hint- Ms Greenhouse, thats what judicial activism means, dear), and as Justice Ginsberg has said, gone all group-think-as-one-in-their-writings, welll that leaves the rock-jawed Thomas and Scalia sticking grimly to stare decisis and originalism (hint, Ms Greenhouse - that is the opposite of activism, you old fool),

while the moderate middle has gone all Oliver Wendell Holmes-ish squishy- "if the Congress wants the country to go to hell, we shall let them"- rather than to honor their oath, to interpret the law, on the law, and serve as the Constitutional purpose for which the Judiciary was intended- a check and balance, vs follow brainwashing of the NYT-DC Elite Who Know Whats Best for the Little People, or suckups in the NYT or anywhere else.

Click to expand...

I have been well aware of all this noise.. I am from nyc and I know the times well..and I know Greenhouse as well.

Her effect if any is on the lower courts and DA.s


Which is pernicious enough.

She is a gossip. Do not magnify her power or dignify her with special powers like "Greenhouse effect". (If anything it is an affect, not an effect).

The left does enough of that without us.


Heres a tip...people with real power are largely invisable.. fear them..not Miss Court Jester..

Thanks, Brooklyn

Brooklyn said:

I have been well aware of all this noise.. I am from nyc and I know the times well..and I know Greenhouse as well.

Her effect if any is on the lower courts and DA.s


Which is pernicious enough.

She is a gossip. Do not magnify her power or dignify her with special powers like "Greenhouse effect". (If anything it is an affect, not an effect).

The left does enough of that without us.


Heres a tip...people with real power are largely invisable.. fear them..not Miss Court Jester..

Click to expand...

Thank you, for letting me vent. And reminding me what is real, again.
Like your signature- light, not heat.

Brooklyn said:

Heres a tip...people with real power are largely invisable.. fear them..not Miss Court Jester..

Click to expand...

One of the BEST comments I've read in quite awhile.