Justice Thomas rips liberal Justices, dissents in cert denial for 2d Am case
| honey-headed mexican | 02/20/18 | | 180 Cuck Dog Poop | 02/20/18 | | Magenta sticky hospital | 02/20/18 | | metal french sanctuary | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | Magenta sticky hospital | 02/20/18 | | bearded cruise ship new version | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | Bonkers razzle-dazzle location | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | Citrine halford lay | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | Stirring bright business firm | 02/20/18 | | Lavender locale | 02/21/18 | | Adventurous elastic band philosopher-king | 12/07/19 | | Judgmental rough-skinned church | 02/20/18 | | electric dull stage yarmulke | 02/20/18 | | metal french sanctuary | 02/20/18 | | metal french sanctuary | 02/20/18 | | 180 Cuck Dog Poop | 02/20/18 | | metal french sanctuary | 02/20/18 | | 180 Cuck Dog Poop | 02/20/18 | | cerebral awkward resort | 12/07/19 | | honey-headed mexican | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | Hateful maroon quadroon indirect expression | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | big bespoke whorehouse | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | yellow out-of-control crackhouse | 02/20/18 | | Plum Misunderstood Plaza | 02/20/18 | | honey-headed mexican | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | Lavender locale | 02/21/18 | | big bespoke whorehouse | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | big bespoke whorehouse | 02/20/18 | | purple coldplay fan | 02/20/18 | | honey-headed mexican | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | Pale Useless Jew Haunted Graveyard | 02/20/18 | | galvanic parlour legend | 02/20/18 | | metal french sanctuary | 02/20/18 | | Exhilarant chrome principal's office azn | 02/20/18 | | deep hyperactive incel | 02/20/18 | | Erotic beady-eyed toilet seat electric furnace | 02/20/18 | | cocky concupiscible state mad-dog skullcap | 02/21/18 | | Balding home regret | 02/20/18 | | 180 Cuck Dog Poop | 02/20/18 | | Infuriating Nudist Lettuce Skinny Woman | 02/20/18 | | deep hyperactive incel | 02/20/18 | | Turquoise deer antler | 02/20/18 | | bearded cruise ship new version | 02/20/18 | | deep hyperactive incel | 02/20/18 | | Lascivious hot marketing idea | 02/20/18 | | 180 Cuck Dog Poop | 02/20/18 | | Buck-toothed institution ceo | 02/20/18 | | Soul-stirring pistol base | 02/20/18 | | Lavender locale | 02/21/18 | | Lascivious hot marketing idea | 02/21/18 | | Ungodly parlor | 02/21/18 | | Adventurous elastic band philosopher-king | 12/07/19 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 20th, 2018 4:33 PM Author: honey-headed mexican
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: galvanic parlour legend
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: galvanic parlour legend
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: Lascivious hot marketing idea
"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: Lavender locale
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)
|
|
|