Justice Thomas rips liberal Justices, dissents in cert denial for 2d Am case
| primrose den | 02/20/18 | | cracking newt principal's office | 02/20/18 | | Exhilarant national roommate | 02/20/18 | | odious multi-billionaire | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | Exhilarant national roommate | 02/20/18 | | Pea-brained histrionic school cafeteria | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | Adventurous Avocado Ape University | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | Comical masturbator love of her life | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | Razzle-dazzle at-the-ready bawdyhouse hissy fit | 02/20/18 | | Cowardly vibrant crotch | 02/21/18 | | vigorous station | 12/07/19 | | Sooty stage | 02/20/18 | | useless supple cuckoldry | 02/20/18 | | odious multi-billionaire | 02/20/18 | | odious multi-billionaire | 02/20/18 | | cracking newt principal's office | 02/20/18 | | odious multi-billionaire | 02/20/18 | | cracking newt principal's office | 02/20/18 | | bateful crawly gaping casino | 12/07/19 | | primrose den | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | maize pit | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | light property toilet seat | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | judgmental silver indian lodge | 02/20/18 | | Razzle Saffron Turdskin | 02/20/18 | | primrose den | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | Cowardly vibrant crotch | 02/21/18 | | light property toilet seat | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | light property toilet seat | 02/20/18 | | Umber nighttime trust fund | 02/20/18 | | primrose den | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | Laughsome clown | 02/20/18 | | plum voyeur psychic | 02/20/18 | | odious multi-billionaire | 02/20/18 | | Contagious house | 02/20/18 | | copper out-of-control hall | 02/20/18 | | anal market goyim | 02/20/18 | | Indecent partner | 02/21/18 | | orchid candlestick maker | 02/20/18 | | cracking newt principal's office | 02/20/18 | | sepia pervert | 02/20/18 | | copper out-of-control hall | 02/20/18 | | greedy really tough guy brunch | 02/20/18 | | Pea-brained histrionic school cafeteria | 02/20/18 | | copper out-of-control hall | 02/20/18 | | cobalt provocative hospital | 02/20/18 | | cracking newt principal's office | 02/20/18 | | Pontificating coral alpha community account | 02/20/18 | | twinkling titillating spot dysfunction | 02/20/18 | | Cowardly vibrant crotch | 02/21/18 | | cobalt provocative hospital | 02/21/18 | | Dull electric kitty cat orchestra pit | 02/21/18 | | vigorous station | 12/07/19 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 20th, 2018 4:33 PM Author: primrose den
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf
"But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own “common sense.” Silvester v. Harris, 843 F. 3d 816, 828 (CA9 2016). It did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, and without ac- knowledging the District Court’s factual findings. This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational- basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the re- spect due an enumerated constitutional right.
If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.
***
If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari. I suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwith- standing a State’s purported interest in creating a “cooling off ” period. Cf. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. v. Akron, 651 F. 2d 1198, 1208 (CA6 1981) (invalidating a 24-hour waiting period for abortions that was meant to create a “‘cooling off period’”), aff’d in relevant part, 462 U. S. 416, 450 (1983); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 887 (1992) (joint opinion of O’Connor, KENNEDY, and Souter, JJ.) (disavowing Akron but upholding a 24-hour waiting period only “on the record before us, and in the context of this facial challenge”). I also suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period on the publication of racist speech, notwithstanding a State’s purported interest in giving the speaker time to calm down. Cf. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U. S. 123 (1992) (holding that the First Amendment forbids a county from charging even a small permitting fee to offset the costs of providing security for a white-nationalist rally); Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. 343 (2003) (holding that the First Amendment protects the burning of a 25-foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 446, n. 1 (1969) (per curiam) (holding that the First Amendment protects a film featuring Klan members wielding firearms, burning a cross, and chanting “ ‘Bury the niggers’ ”). Similarly, four Members of this Court would vote to review even a 10- minute delay of a traffic stop. Cf. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U. S. ___ (2015) (holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from delaying a traffic stop seven or eight minutes to conduct a dog sniff). The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446702) |
Date: February 20th, 2018 4:41 PM Author: plum voyeur psychic
DAYAM
Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases
only enables this kind of defiance. We have not heard
argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight
years. Peruta v. California, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017)
(THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op.,
at 7). And we have not clarified the standard for assessing
Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in
this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five
cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving
the Fourth Amendment—even though our
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446766) |
Date: February 20th, 2018 4:42 PM Author: plum voyeur psychic
HOLY FUCK @ this
If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored
rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari.
I suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to
review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding
a State’s purported interest in creating a “cooling
off ” period. Cf. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.
v. Akron, 651 F. 2d 1198, 1208 (CA6 1981) (invalidating a
24-hour waiting period for abortions that was meant to
create a “‘cooling off period’”), aff ’d in relevant part, 462
U. S. 416, 450 (1983); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 887 (1992) (joint opinion of
O’Connor, KENNEDY, and Souter, JJ.) (disavowing Akron
but upholding a 24-hour waiting period only “on the record
before us, and in the context of this facial challenge”). I
also suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to
review a 10-day waiting period on the publication of racist
speech, notwithstanding a State’s purported interest in
giving the speaker time to calm down. Cf. Forsyth County
v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U. S. 123 (1992) (holding
that the First Amendment forbids a county from charging
even a small permitting fee to offset the costs of providing
security for a white-nationalist rally); Virginia v. Black,
538 U. S. 343 (2003) (holding that the First Amendment
protects the burning of a 25-foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan
rally); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 446, n. 1 (1969)
(per curiam) (holding that the First Amendment protects a
film featuring Klan members wielding firearms, burning a
cross, and chanting “‘Bury the niggers’”). Similarly, four
Members of this Court would vote to review even a 10-
minute delay of a traffic stop. Cf. Rodriguez v. United
States, 575 U. S. ___ (2015) (holding that the Fourth
Amendment prohibits the police from delaying a traffic
stop seven or eight minutes to conduct a dog sniff). The
Court would take these cases because abortion, speech,
and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights.
The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s
constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have
gotten the message.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446772) |
Date: February 20th, 2018 5:19 PM Author: cobalt provocative hospital
"Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance."
He's right.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35447012) |
Date: February 21st, 2018 12:06 AM Author: Cowardly vibrant crotch
thomas is always right.
odds that some california mom tries to get a gun to protect herself against some crazy ex, but is prevented from doing so because of the waiting period. very high. i hope it occurs very soon, too
i assume the waiting period doesn't have exceptions, right?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35450063)
|
|
|