In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see
what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of
the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8
(opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent
think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have
occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent
think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting
be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun
outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the
fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list
took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this
case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
Thomas one of the worst people in American history
The government will have to show, Thomas says, that a gun regulation “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
lol, the fuck does this even mean? I mean I know it’s all Calvinball anyway but lololol come on man, at least try.
Good lord. What a horror show.
The Thomas opinion indicates that it is “settled” that places like polling places and courthouses “were ‘sensitive places’ where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment.” And courts can analogize to simliar sensitive places, he adds.
Still can’t bring guns to the court though. Although if someone really wants to commit crimes at a court a law isn’t going to stop them so why bother amirite?
Why should they try? They know they don’t have to.
To keep the spark alive. They’re gonna get bored after a while.
I think we are pretty close to blue states just straight up ignoring the Supreme Court. Justifiably so.
That’s what we need, except for the feds to do it too. There’s nothing anywhere in the Constitution that gives them the power to strike down laws, so based on strict textualism nobody should listen to anything they say ever.
Fun fact on Miranda that I learned today - even if a Miranda-tainted statement is inadmissible in court, a Miranda-tainted statement can be used to discover evidence. Normally, if the police conduct an illegal search, none of the evidence derived from that search is admissible - it’s “fruit from the poisonous tree”. But apparently (United States v. Patane), fruit gathered as a result of a Miranda-tainted statement does not fall in that category. Which makes it really important to provide remedies for Miranda violations beyond just “the statements themselves aren’t admissible as evidence”.
Of course, this is all moot because they’re going to straight out overturn Miranda within the next 5 years.
In any sane world the response would be a blue wave and court expansion.
https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1539983314345500674?s=21&t=pWiMOLWpsYW8CNcM97u4Ng
LOL? No Democrat has the stones to do that. Rule of law, etc.
Duh
Dynamite drop in Preet, how’s your 7-figure corporate law job going?
https://twitter.com/preetbharara/status/1539985973928464386?s=21&t=pWiMOLWpsYW8CNcM97u4Ng
John Roberts just voted with the majority in every single one of these cases and maintains a net positive favorable rating among Democrats. It’s absolutely hopeless
So we’re going to be seeing jerk offs carrying guns in public in all 50 states pretty soon, I guess? Just to prove they can. (Even though they mostly already could.)
It’s assymetric warfare. The liberal justices are all actual judges who believe in concepts like stare decisis, and on the other side you have Republican political operatives.
We are going to see high crime areas become even higher crime areas. Gundeaths will rise dramatically, especially in low income minority neighborhoods. And the court knows this. It’s likely the point. They are disgusting people.
We’re going to have guns on airplanes within 3 years. The only places they’ll be prohibited are legislatures, courtrooms and GOP political gatherings.