Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[Mark75H]

Yeah if they do that - the repubs will just add more people next time they control the Presidency and the Senate. It will be a never ending battle until there aren't enough attorneys to fill the hundreds of thousands of spots. That would be awful.

The Andy Worhol Supreme Court; everyone will be on it.

 

[ROBAR35]

Bruen was 6-3, not 5-4. Yes, Kavanaugh and Alito wrote separate concurrences, but they concurred, and both supported Heller's "in common use for lawful purposes" standard.
https://www.nssf.org/articles/the-u-s-supreme-court-bruen-decision-garners-americans-approval/

Absolutely correct !!

 

[Blacksmith101]

There is a lot of BGOS here because we live in one of the few anti gun holdout states but in case everyone hasn't noticed the attitude toward guns in the United States has been changing for the better despite what the MSM says. We have come a long way baby! Take a look at this map and compare the first map in the series to the last and the last has not been updated since Bruen. The red and yellow have mostly turned to blue and now the blue is turning to green and the red no longer exists.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to_Carry%2C_timeline.gif

To summarize:
Number of States 1986 vs 2022
Unrestricted was 1 now 25
Shall Issue was 8 now 17
May Issue was 25 now 8
No Issue was 16 now 0

 

[owldo]

There is a lot of BGOS here because we live in one of the few anti gun holdout states but in case everyone hasn't noticed the attitude toward guns in the United States has been changing for the better despite what the MSM says. We have come a long way baby! Take a look at this map and compare the first map in the series to the last and the last has not been updated since Bruen. The red and yellow have mostly turned to blue and now the blue is turning to green and the red no longer exists.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to_Carry%2C_timeline.gif

To summarize:
Number of States 1986 vs 2022
Unrestricted was 1 now 22
Shall Issue was 8 now 25
May Issue was 25 now 8
No Issue was 16 now 0

Thanks for Sharing that link !

 

[ironpony]

I see no proof the R's will have the courage to do what would need to be done to counter act the lengths that the D's will and have gone to in order to advance/keep conservative values, the D's will even attempt to erase those values from history.
yes, cool link Blacksmith.

ok, going over to twitter.gov to get my news for the day.

 

[Afrikeber]

If only the GOP would disassociate themselves from the societal chitbirds they would have a good chance but they will not.

The DNC is rapidly losing support of the centrists and they know that.

Go back to Reaganomics cut the Trumpites loose and the GOP will prevail.

 

[Allen65]

If only the GOP would disassociate themselves from the societal chitbirds they would have a good chance but they will not.

The DNC is rapidly losing support of the centrists and they know that.

Go back to Reaganomics cut the Trumpites loose and the GOP will prevail.

That would alienate more than half their voter base. I'd love to see a return to thoughtful conservatism, too, but I'm finding that a lonely hill to be standing on. Most of the GOP is off trying to burn stuff down elsewhere under the direction of grifters; it's become the party of paranoia and constant outrage instead of actual Conservatism.

And, no, I'm not praising the Dems. Their identity politics is repugnant and dangerous, and their twisted, pseudo-Keynesian view of economics is disconnected from reality, as demonstrated by our little inflation problem.

It's just that there doesn't seem to be a place for people in politics now for those who actually want to fix problems rather than blame. There is just too much money and too many votes to be had by pointing fingers and screaming.

 

[Occam]

Go back to Reaganomics cut the Trumpites loose and the GOP will prevail.

To be fair, if it weren't for "the Trumpites," we'd have had eight years of President Hillary Clinton, a Supreme Court in far-left progressive activist mode for decades to come, and all the wreckage that certainly would have accompanied her having that office. We were saved from that by an annoying populist with good policy sense and the backbone to get things done despite an historically unprecedented level of malice from within the government and throughout nearly the entirety of the press, entertainment, and academic institutions.

 

[lazarus]

Not a fair comparison because conservatives play by the rules. The Libs change the rules when they can't win by following them.

In a state like MD, where the Libs can control the AG, the state judges, the federal judges and the circuit judges, they could easily manufacture a perfect case, fast track it up to the SCOTUS and neutralize Bruen in no time. If you don't see that as a possibility then you have way too much faith in the system and don't have enough BGOS.

Come again? It is mostly republicans held states that are constantly tinkering election rules because they are winning national elections. That is the literal definition of changing the rules.

 

[rbird7282]

The filibuster is an internal Senate rule, not a law. Senate rules, including the filibuster, can be changed by a vote of the Senate, and do not require consent of the House or the President.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf#page=10

I’m aware of how it works. I was referencing Tebonski’s comment that once the Dems has all three, they would change it.
They could’ve don’t it already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rbird7282]

The reason why there aren’t 13 Supreme Court justices now is because Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema wouldn’t go along with Chuck Schumers court packing scheme. When democrats do get that critical mass of enough senators they will change America forever.

My guess is that there are a few other Dems that wouldn’t go along with it because they know that eventually it would bite them in the ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Occam]

The reason why there aren’t 13 Supreme Court justices now is because Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema wouldn’t go along with Chuck Schumers court packing scheme. When democrats do get that critical mass of enough senators they will change America forever.

Even if they got EVERY senator to agree, they now have lost the House, and aren’t going to get such a new statute through the GOP controlled chamber.

 

[dblas]

Even if they got EVERY senator to agree, they now have lost the House, and aren’t going to get such a new statute through the GOP controlled chamber.

There is no statute required to change the number of Justices in SCOTUS, simply nominations and voting in the Senate. The House plays no part in the matter, middle school civics and school house rock taught this.

 

[Mark75H]

There is no statute required to change the number of Justices in SCOTUS, simply nominations and voting in the Senate. The House plays no part in the matter, middle school civics and school house rock taught this.

As I said before, people come here to learn middle school civics

 

[mac1_131]

What is the judiciary act of 1869?

 

[fabsroman]

Not a fair comparison because conservatives play by the rules. The Libs change the rules when they can't win by following them.

In a state like MD, where the Libs can control the AG, the state judges, the federal judges and the circuit judges, they could easily manufacture a perfect case, fast track it up to the SCOTUS and neutralize Bruen in no time. If you don't see that as a possibility then you have way too much faith in the system and don't have enough BGOS.

Remind me what SCOTUS did in Bruen? It changed the rules of review. Since 1995, my first year in law school, there has always been the strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny test. We get a conservative SCOTUS and poof, the rules are changed.

Please, both sides change the rules as they see fit. If the libs thought they could get away with packing SCOTUS, they would. However, they know that if they tried it, there would eventually be 300+ Justices sitting on SCOTUS. Biden was advised of this when he commissioned a review of appointing more Justices to SCOTUS.

In Heller, it is my opinion that Scalia went looking long and deep for a way to make the 2nd Amendment an individual right for broad self defense, versus an individual right for self defense from the government, versus a collective right for forming a militia.

Neither side follows some moral code. Neither side plays by the rules. You are a conservative, so you like to think that your side is always playing by the rules.

 

[CrueChief]

Won't be long and the GOP will not win the whitehouse or a senate majority for long enough that the country will too far gone. What really needs to happen is either dump every single establishment GOP DC critter or conservatives need to move on from the the GOP altogether. It is becoming increasingly clear the GOP are toxic. With the political climate we are in and the mid terms turned out the way they did proves the masses aren't buying what the GOP is selling. Not to mention they aren't even an opposition party anymore, and no being a dem lite isn't opposition. Neither is being a 7 on the leftist scale when the demons are 12s.

 

[Occam]

As I said before, people come here to learn middle school civics

Or to hear it not fully explained.

 

[Occam]

There is no statute required to change the number of Justices in SCOTUS, simply nominations and voting in the Senate. The House plays no part in the matter, middle school civics and school house rock taught this.

The current number of justices was established by a bi-cameral act of congress in 1869. Like other legislation, it required both chambers and the signature of the president. The structure of the court was modified by that law, and remains unchanged since. It wasn’t just the senate picking “9” out of thin air and thus making it so.

The senate can’t even get just its one part of such a change in place again unless - for the foreseeable demographic future - they first kill the filibuster. And even then, that doesn’t get a new law passed to tear down the one from 1869. That requires the House.

 

[Atlasarmory]

So are we still thinking En banc or back to DC ?