Tuesday @ 11:00 a.m. Emergency Hearing

[Hopalong]

We are screwed!

Losing fast in the lower courts gets us to the big court faster. And we all know that we want these issues before SCOTUS before the make-up changes. So even being screwed could be a blessing as long as it happens quickly.

 

[PowPow]

Losing fast in the lower courts gets us to the big court faster. And we all know that we want these issues before SCOTUS before the make-up changes. So even being screwed could be a blessing as long as it happens quickly.

^ This.

It will be appealed all the way to SCOTUS anyway. Why not take the fastest route there.

 

[teratos]

I think the TRO is going to be tough to turn down.

- Firearm ownership is a Civil Right. It is protected not only by the Constitution, but by the original Bill of Rights.
- Heller and McDonald upheld the 2A as an individual Right, and Heller gave us the "common use" test.
- At this point, after October 1, it will not be possible for anyone to purchase a handgun in Maryland at all. It amounts to a ban on handguns.

Even for a liberal, how do you say this is OK without looking like a total illiterate ass? Judges don't like to get their pee-pees spanked by the higher courts, and this is not something that can pass Constitutional muster, no matter what Mr. Gansler says....

 

[jcutonilli]

Greenbelt or Balt for Hearing ?

Baltimore

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/calendar/DisplayCalendarBaltimore.asp

 

[KSFrostie]

If an injunction/TRO is ordered does that mean that only the HQL mandate will be suspended or the whole bill.

 

[andimorony]

I think the TRO is going to be tough to turn down.

- Firearm ownership is a Civil Right. It is protected not only by the Constitution, but by the original Bill of Rights.
- Heller and McDonald upheld the 2A as an individual Right, and Heller gave us the "common use" test.
- At this point, after October 1, it will not be possible for anyone to purchase a handgun in Maryland at all. It amounts to a ban on handguns.

Even for a liberal, how do you say this is OK without looking like a total illiterate ass? Judges don't like to get their [B]pee-pees [/B]spanked by the higher courts, and this is not something that can pass Constitutional muster, no matter what Mr. Gansler says....

Is that a legal term or a Grey's term? ROFLMAO!

Otherwise: THIS!

 

[MDFF2008]

I think the TRO is going to be tough to turn down.

- Firearm ownership is a Civil Right. It is protected not only by the Constitution, but by the original Bill of Rights.
- Heller and McDonald upheld the 2A as an individual Right, and Heller gave us the "common use" test.
- At this point, after October 1, it will not be possible for anyone to purchase a handgun in Maryland at all. It amounts to a ban on handguns.

Even for a liberal, how do you say this is OK without looking like a total illiterate ass? Judges don't like to get their pee-pees spanked by the higher courts, and this is not something that can pass Constitutional muster, no matter what Mr. Gansler says....

While I wouldn't be surprised if she denies it, I do think that it will get a stupid slap from a higher court.

 

[Mr H]

If an injunction/TRO is ordered does that mean that only the HQL mandate will be suspended or the whole bill.

I believe this is the "banned items" hearing. I haven't heard anything about the HQL case having been scheduled.

But, I may have missed it.

 

[HoCoShooter]

I think the TRO is going to be tough to turn down.



Even for a liberal, how do you say this is OK without looking like a total illiterate ass? Judges don't like to get their pee-pees spanked by the higher courts, and this is not something that can pass Constitutional muster, no matter what Mr. Gansler says....

This is identical to what I/millions of others thought about the individual mandate of Obamacare. And to have us finally screwed by Roberts of all people?

I agree with what others have said, if this gets to the SC without a change in it's makeup, we have a FAIR chance. If a dem wins in 2016 we are sunk.

 

[Xander]

Slick willie huh? Maybe she likes the smell of a good cigar? lol You would hope as sensitive as this suit is she'll rule accordingly, as it's most likely ending up at the Supreme Court.

Why on earth would you say something this stupid and offensive? Judges have law clerks who do exhaustive research, by the way. Also, it's a little hypocritical to demand respect for the Constitution without giving some for the institutions who safeguard it. We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

 

[aireyc]

Seems to me that an argument against the HQL that could be used is the same as the libs use against voter ID. If a voter is too inconvenienced to the point of violating their constitutional right to vote in requiring him/her to get a Free photo ID to vote how much more of a violation is it to the RKBA in the fingerprinting (not free), training (not free) and license (definitely not free). Just my thoughts. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this analogy.

The thing is, there is no right to vote defined in the Constitution. Any sane society would understand that and thus the HQL being unconstitutional would be a no-brainer, but this society is far from sane.

 

[Inigoes]

Since the MSP is incapable of supporting the law, a TRO should be in the bag.

 

[teratos]

Is that a legal term or a Grey's term? ROFLMAO!

Otherwise: THIS!

Grey's. It's Olde English....

This is identical to what I/millions of others thought about the individual mandate of Obamacare. And to have us finally screwed by Roberts of all people?

I agree with what others have said, if this gets to the SC without a change in it's makeup, we have a FAIR chance. If a dem wins in 2016 we are sunk.

There is no Right to healthcare in the Constitution. There is also the Commerce Clause that the courts have made a travesty of for many years. I see where Roberts is coming from. I hate Obamacare, don't get me wrong. Facts:

1. Obama ran on a platform promising what he delivered. Sure, the experts said this was going to be a disaster...who cares.

2. Obama was elected by the majority of voters

3. Obamacare passed in Congress. These are people elected by these same voters. It was signed into law.

4. It's a tax.

5. Roberts said after the decision that it is not the courts' duty to protect people from those they elect. Truer words were never spoken.

Summary: He ran on it, he got elected, it passed......enjoy.

Yes, the American People got screwed. This isn't in the Bill of Rights.

 

[drthv8r]

Because it seems I got your panties in a twist...

Why on earth would you say something this stupid and offensive?

 

[occbrian]

Grey's. It's Olde English....

There is no Right to healthcare in the Constitution. There is also the Commerce Clause that the courts have made a travesty of for many years. I see where Roberts is coming from. I hate Obamacare, don't get me wrong. Facts:

1. Obama ran on a platform promising what he delivered. Sure, the experts said this was going to be a disaster...who cares.

2. Obama was elected by the majority of voters

3. Obamacare passed in Congress. These are people elected by these same voters. It was signed into law.

4. It's a tax.

5. Roberts said after the decision that it is not the courts' duty to protect people from those they elect. Truer words were never spoke.

Summary: He ran on it, he got elected, it passed......enjoy.

Yes, the American People got screwed. This isn't in the Bill of Rights.

So true, it burns.


Sent from my fire using smoke.

 

[hvymax]

So should we fill the room with BLUE?

 

[Hopalong]

Grey's. It's Olde English....



There is no Right to healthcare in the Constitution. There is also the Commerce Clause that the courts have made a travesty of for many years. I see where Roberts is coming from. I hate Obamacare, don't get me wrong. Facts:

1. Obama ran on a platform promising what he delivered. Sure, the experts said this was going to be a disaster...who cares.

2. Obama was elected by the majority of voters

3. Obamacare passed in Congress. These are people elected by these same voters. It was signed into law.

4. It's a tax.

5. Roberts said after the decision that it is not the courts' duty to protect people from those they elect. Truer words were never spoken.

Summary: He ran on it, he got elected, it passed......enjoy.

Yes, the American People got screwed. This isn't in the Bill of Rights.

Roberts is a great judge. He rules on the legality of questions asked of him, nothing more. The problem is that the ACA case was a shitty question to even ask. Even though ACA will likely end up being a terrible failure, there's nothing unconstitutional about it.

Incidentally, conservatives tend to ignore the fact that Roberts handed Obama and big-government Liberals a huge setback by not expanding the power of the Commerce Clause. Never forget that.

 

[HoCoShooter]

Grey's. It's Olde English....



There is no Right to healthcare in the Constitution. There is also the Commerce Clause that the courts have made a travesty of for many years. I see where Roberts is coming from. I hate Obamacare, don't get me wrong. Facts:

1. Obama ran on a platform promising what he delivered. Sure, the experts said this was going to be a disaster...who cares.

2. Obama was elected by the majority of voters

3. Obamacare passed in Congress. These are people elected by these same voters. It was signed into law.

4. It's a tax.

5. Roberts said after the decision that it is not the courts' duty to protect people from those they elect. Truer words were never spoken.

Summary: He ran on it, he got elected, it passed......enjoy.

Yes, the American People got screwed. This isn't in the Bill of Rights.

All good points. Nonetheless, it still felt like conservatives paid (will pay) the price for something they wanted no part of. If the SC becomes any more stacked, the same thing will happen to the 2nd amendment. It's no secret that a few of the judges would happily burn portions of the constitution tomorrow morning if they could.

 

[Crab Bait]

Come on now, gentlemen, what's with all the negativism?

We are talking about a Federal Judge, surely she'll be fair and impartial in her decision.

 

[teratos]

All good points. Nonetheless, it still felt like conservatives paid (will pay) the price for something they wanted no part of. If the SC becomes any more stacked, the same thing will happen to the 2nd amendment. It's no secret that a few of the judges would happily burn portions of the constitution tomorrow morning if they could.

I agree 100% that conservatives will pay for something they never wanted. Probably proportionally more than the libs who voted for it. The problem is, there is no Constitutional protection from it except the Right to vote.

What we are dealing with is an enumerated and clearly defined Right.