💥The fifth SCOTUS opinion today: United States v. Rahimi
Reuters: U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF BIDEN ADMINISTRATION DEFENDING FEDERAL GUN BAN FOR DOMESTIC ABUSERS
2/ Of course, Thomas dissents
https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Done for today.
MacFarlane:
With no ruling from Supreme Court today: Half of the available pre-election time has expired
It’s been 137 days since the most recent court filing in USA v Trump
criminal case
It’s 137 days until the election
3/ Mystal:
This is the HUGE case about whether domestic abusers can have guns.
Looks like the answer is "no" 8-1, by Roberts, with a few concurrences, Thomas dissenting.
The way Roberts squared the circle with Heller and Bruen (the two awful SCOTUS gun cases) is "Those decisions, however, did not define the term and said nothing about the status of citizens who were not “responsible.”"
4/ Mystal:
Interestingly... the word "RESPONSIBLE" is found no where in the Second Amendment. But I guess conservatives are willing to read that word into the Amendment. Too bad they won't notice words that are actually in the Amendment... like "MILITIA"
@GottaLaff Despite their claims of interpreting the Constitution from the point of view of the framers, not only do they ignore the whole "militia" thing, they also ignore that guns at the time were commonly stored in armories, not in automobiles and under pillows or down one's trousers.
The #Republican puppets on #SCOTUS only care about gun industry profits and those sweet NRA gifts they neglect to disclose.
@bigheadtales and they are right to ignore the whole "militia thing" based on how the amendment was written.
If you want to change it, go ahead! That's how the process is supposed to work.
Until the amendment is changed, though, the "amendment thing" is phrased specifically so as to be ignored.
The first is a nice factoid, but really the second part of the second would be the operative part of the sentence and of course the first half would be ignored because of the way it was written.
The remark about pantyhose is incidental to the more crucial assertion that the state should not have the authority to execute anyone. Nobody would interpret the above and say "obviously it means the state is not allowed to kill anyone only when it relates to pantyhose"
It's also notable that both the left and the right obviously disregard the constitution as an absolute statement regularly. That's why strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests exist for laws, so that you can violate enumerated rights but only if you really want to and it's done according to the law.