08-14-2019, 01:24 PM
(08-14-2019, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Last first: I'm not in favor of packing the courts. That's just adding politics to something the same people say is becoming too political.
Well reasoned and stated.
Quote:The other options mentioned in the story aren't that bad: term limits for example.
From the story, for context (bold mine):
I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not what this Threat to the Court (see what I did there?) brief states.
Quote:So, to me, it's more of a claim against the conservative groups that are tied to the justices who would rule on the case than a slam on the justices themselves except that they feel the justices shouldn't be ruling on something they are tired too very closely.
I don't see it that way. I think a brief summary of the case in question would help. Please forgive any mistakes or omissions in my summation, they will not be intentional.
1. NYC passes law that states gun owners in the city can only take the gun from their city residence directly to one of four (five?) gun ranges in the city and back. They are not permitted to take then anywhere else or they are breaking the law.
2. Law is challenged in court and meets with predictable results in New York state court. Appeals occur and SCOTUS eventually agrees to hear the case.
3. NYC then files a brief stating to SCOTUS that, essentially, "we're going to change the law now so no need for you guys to review it. SCOTUS takes dim view of this, IMO obvious, attempt to avoid their hearing this case and states case will go forward.
4. NY state legislature then passes law preempting the NYC gun law, another brief is filed claiming "mootness" (the case no longer matters as it's subject matter no longer exists).
5. NYC goes further and changes law completely, makes same argument as #4 above.
6. Democratic Senators warn court about continuing with case as it will be "politically motivated" if they do and warn that they could pack the court in the future if their warning (threat) isn't heeded.
The complains about the NRA and other 2A groups is window dressing on their threat. Of course the NRA and other 2A groups support a lawsuit against a gun law they consider highly unconstitutional.
Quote:So this made news because Gillibrand signed off on it and it went at the justices. Not sure if there is a valid point there or not as I don't know if the justices are directly tied to the groups or if it's just more "conservatives want conservatives and we don't trust them".
Not just Gillibrand. Also, it made news because it's essentially mafia tactics. "Hey you got a really nice Supreme Court here. It'd be a shame if someone came along and packed it."
Quote:I have more a problem with her saying she supported the NRA in the past (that's in the article also) and now claiming she regrets that. No, you changed for votes. It's ok to say the NRA as a group made of members has a good cause and still criticize them when they go against your values. Assuming you have values.
Much like Obama flipping on same sex marriage, but I digress.
What you're actually seeing here is complete fear. Anti2A activists, and Senators, are concerned that this case will be the crowbar needed for the SCOTUS to determine that 2A impacting laws be subject to "strict scrutiny". It essentially breaks down like this;
Currently lawsuits against gun control laws have to prove in court that said law impacts against their rights under the second amendment. Under a "strict scrutiny" standard the opposite is true, a lawsuit against a gun control law puts the onus on the defenders of said law to prove their law is not unconstitutional. What this will almost certainly do is methodically eliminate all gun restrictions at the state level such as "assault weapons" bans, standard capacity magazine bans etc.
This fear is the reason for this brief/threat. They are terrified of what might happen if SCOTUS continues with this case despite the obvious machinations from New York City and State to avoid having the case heard.
