The well tailored fig leaf?
11 Likes
Thomas’s reasoning so deep? Party like it was 1789. They didn’t have traffic control devises then so lets can the stoplights and speed limits.
You can bet those wingnuts on that foul Court gave this one some thought. If they allowed this scumbag to keep his 9mm dick extension and he shot someone or someone else in a similar situation did they’d have blood on their hands that could not be washed off.
We had to run up a case involving a gun nut with multiple gun related offenses up to SCOTUS to see if he could keep his guns. Aint that America something to see.
11 Likes
Clarence is that guy so anxious to fit in that commit all kinds of faux-passes.
3 Likes
If you want to point out the full bad faith lunacy of originalism, and Uncle Thomas, here’s your top contender citation.
5 Likes
“a rigid adherence to history… impoverishes constitutional interpretation and hamstrings our democracy”
Feature, not a bug.
2 Likes
I still don’t understand how smart men like Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch signed up for that monstrosity that was Bruen. As Thomas wrote it was clearly stupid and it was obvious going to come back to bite them. Now it did, they reversed themselves a bit and now they are going to have to deal with cases piecemeal again.
8 Likes
“Faithful adherence to the Constitution’s original meaning may be an imperfect guide, but I can think of no more perfect one for us to follow,” he simpered.
“….He simpered.” (Gorsuch)
Kate Riga strikes again.
Thanks @Kate_Riga24
31 Likes
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
6 Likes
All you have to do is fly him on a private plane to some exclusive resort or buy him a “motor coach” and he’s in your pocket for life. Even when it makes no sense at all. The NRA has their man.
5 Likes
Thomas made a decent point that if the Bruen decision is good law then domestic abusers probably should have the right to keep their guns notwithstanding a restraining order. What the court has done here is implicitly limit Bruen (a good thing) and it also opens the door for governments to impose other reasonable restrictions on guns to protect public safety (e.g., background checks, banning certain types of guns and accessories etc.). Of course, the court just overturned the bump stock ban, so they’re sort of flailing here going by vibes and smell tests and hiding behind the rubric of purported sophisticated legal analysis.
This decision strongly suggests the law should move to a position to give due deference to governments where there is a credible public safety purpose asserted.
21 Likes
But law-abiding gun-owners falsely accused of domestic violence need not despair. The ultimate arbitrators of what is constitutional, The Constitutional Sheriffs have your back. The would not let that witch wife of yours have your guns taken away so that her lover can whack you.
5 Likes
You gotta’ protect the breeding stock!
2 Likes
As with the Mifepristone ruling, the 5th Circuit Court guano assembly line make it seem like the SC is more moderate than it is by allowing it to occasionally rule against batshit insane ultra-right wing cases. Leo’s Overton Window-moving service strikes again.
17 Likes
Except the standard is still there has to be a “historical analogue” (but not necessarily a “historical twin”) to pass Constitutional muster. How close to a historical law or regulation does a modern one need to be so that it is sufficiently “analoguey” enough? Who knows, which is why all sorts of garbage cases like this are making it to Court in the first place.
What needs to happen is for the Court to call a mulligan and throw out Bruen for the previous standard.
14 Likes
Seriously now… I know all too well personally what guns can do. A domestic abuser ought never have access to a gun. My experience was in a home invasion where I had to defend myself after getting shot at. I did not kill the perp but did hit him in his gluteus (ass muscle). Middle guy got shot by the third guy at the bottom of the stairs… guns are not toys. And it seems Thomas is an irrational idiot.
18 Likes
Depends what result the Gang wants to reach that day.
There, that was easy.
13 Likes
Well, that WAS the original intent. Clarence’s hypocritical meanderings aside, I liked him better when he never used to say anything. Silent as a clam.
7 Likes
Clearly, cats are conscious enough to know “Oh shit” …lol
1 Like
Thomas, writing for the majority, knocked down a century-old New York gun licensing law because it lacked a historical analog from the country’s founding.
Clarence, it wasn’t a hi-tech lynching of a black man. It was a futile attempt to keep an incompetent off the court.
See, originally, you weren’t a person. Get it?
8 Likes
Why is it I think Mrs Thomas had a lot to do with his decision?
2 Likes