We must respect the legacy of legacies…
I am surprised gay marriage isn’t already on the docket
Next up for the court is giving back the right to own a gun to convicted wife beaters and stalkers.
How any woman votes Republican is beyond me.
I doubt it. That seems like one that they took to give cover to all the other heinous bullshit they’re gonna do next term. A variation of the Roberts two step.
I’d take action on this one. Seems like a lock to me they grant this.
Guess we will see. It’s the worst guessing game ever!
Sure, how much you wanna do? Something like $50? I’m up for more or less, whatever you wanna do. I win if they reverse the 5th circuit in United States v Rahimi, you win if they uphold. No action if for some reason there’s a tie.
How would we handle middle ground crap? I’m not a lawyer but I think there might be versions that are not true uphold or overrule.
If some middle ground happens bet off?
Yeah, IANAL either but I would agree to no action on any kind of middle ground bullshit.
Booked.
1 Like
The thing is nobody ever does shit beyond having surprised Pikachu face. “Dude, can you believe the People’s Court is still murdering dissidents???” No man, it’s completely unbelievable–maybe we’re one New York Times article away from them realizing their mistake. Vote harder and deliver us 60 DeeAnne Feensteens and then vote harderer.
5 Likes
Replacing ten Republicans in the Senate with a bunch of Feinsteins would actually accomplish a lot.
The issue at hand in that case is whether it is constitutional to revoke the right to own a gun from people who have not been convicted of anything, but have received a restraining order.
The dude is extremely unsympathetic and the biggest 2A nutter is gonna agree this guy should not have a gun, but at the time he was charged with illegally processing firearms, he was not a convicted criminal and the only court order against him was civil.
The case, United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, concerns Mr. Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas with a history of armed violence, according to court records. In 2019, Mr. Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order. The order suspended Mr. Rahimi’s handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms.
He threatened a different woman with a gun, leading to charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Then, in the space of two months, he opened fire in public five times.
Upset about a social media post from someone to whom he had sold drugs, for instance, he shot an AR-15 rifle into his former client’s home. When a fast-food restaurant declined a friend’s credit card, he fired several bullets into the air.
From the record before us, Rahimi did not fall into any such group at the time he was charged with violating § 922(g)(8), so the “strong presumption” that he remained among “the people” protected by the amendment holds. When he was charged, Rahimi was subject to an agreed domestic violence restraining order that was entered in a civil proceeding. That alone does not suffice to remove him from the political community within the amendment’s scope. And, while he was suspected of other criminal conduct at the time, Rahimi was not a convicted felon or otherwise subject to another “longstanding prohibition on the possession of firearms” that would have excluded him.
It’s an interesting case because there is one outcome that is obviously better for society, especially women, and it is unanimously agreed upon that the defendant is a piece of shit, but I can understand the legal justification they may use to overturn it. Given the existence of an individual right to bear arms as affirmed in Heller, the idea of nullifying a constitutional right with a civil order is legally questionable enough for this court.
Gun control is DEAD in USA#1 while the court is 6-3 (until PACexit 
).
4 Likes
Thanks I obviously didn’t know the details well enough.
1 Like
I like a lot of things about you including that you will “back pedal” when you get new information. I wish more people were like that.
5 Likes
Jfc.
2 Likes
More like it would just keep awful things from being passed for a little while
Honestly the reason I think they reverse here 100% of the time is why would they bother taking the case if they weren’t going to? Just let the 5th circuit ruling stand and move on to the next batshit crazy thing you’re gonna do. The libs don’t even have enough votes to force a cert grant so at least one of the right wingers was on board with taking this thing. Otoh I could be completely wrong and out $50 in a year, anything is possible with these guys.
1 Like
A lot of things won’t get filibustered and will pass if there are 50 votes for them. (If Dems also control the House.)
1 Like
This was a really great episode. I think there’s a lot more ambiguity in this case (in the specific Colorado law, more generally) than a lot of people do, and I was wondering if 5-4 would just steamroll over the other side’s arguments as if they didn’t exist. But I thought they did a great job recognizing the two sides in tension and articulating how they’d balance those two sides (and still end up ruling against the “website designer”).
A+ episode.
2 Likes