I may be ignorant about the duration of SCOTUS decision-making, but it seems to me that a case, that is clearly defined in the Constitution, should be a no-brainer for the court. Why is it taking so long? Are they looking for ways to justify government “infringement”??
No, I expect that given the page-length of the inane and unsupportable Ninth Circuit opinion stating a “collective right,” and the meticulously detailed Fifth Circuit opinion recognizing the individual nature of the right, the Supreme Court figures they ought to do at least a good a job as the Fifth did, even if it’s not as many pages, in order to adequately smack down the Ninth.
The US Supreme Court has talked about the Second Amendment in terms of an individual right for decades, so there’s not much reason to expect them to change course now.
I’ll be interested to see if they attempt to weasel out of “shall not be infringed.”
Because they want to maintain continuity with older rulings and lower rulings where possible, as well as allow flexibility for future courts.
The 2nd amendment is NOT "clearly defined" unless you believe that DWI felons should be allowed to own full-auto 50 cal ma dueces on the trunk of their car to keep the cops in check. Like the "shouting fire" restriction on the 1st Amendment....once you make certain restrictions on the 2nd amendment, then everything gets complicated.
“clearly defined in the Constitution, should be a no-brainer for the court.”
Yet we have paper money, and the court decided that it was OK in 1871 or so, and they did it without the help of emanations and penumbras. “Coin” became “print” and “paper” by stroke of Supreme pen.
“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; “
“Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. “
Right off the top of my head I can think of at least 25 cases where it was so obvious as to be a no brainer and the USSC went the other direction! A distinct lack of brains represented on the liberal left on this court is quite evident so our civil liberties are always in jeopardy when they meet.
I have often thought that at least one of those justices shouldn't in fact be a judge at all. They should be a history teacher with valid conservative credentials and a strong and visceral objection to revisionist history. Somebody ... like .... me!
This is normal scheduling for any SCOTUS case.
The judges probably had made their individual decisions when they took the case in the first place (there really isn't that much subsequently new to change their minds on a well-established, if controversial, subject). They then had to wait for the main parties, and their friends, to submit nearly a half-million words of argument on all sides and many tangents to the subject. Then they had to perform the theatrical activity of "oral arguments" where much is discussed but little is said. Then they have to figure out where each judge stands on the issue, aggregate into varying/conflicting points of view, figure out what the majority actually agrees on, and figure out how minority views will be expressed. Then they have to discuss what the consequences of the verdict are and how those will be addressed. Then they have to write a long and incredibly carefully worded document stating the verdict and reasons by which that was reached, and define limits & openings to the scope of that ruling. Then they have to get it printed, archived, and distributed.
It's not a simple process.
Especially when a majority of the judges know what the verdict should be, but are terrified of "third rail" consequences such as that a direct consequence will be the full legalization of machineguns.
They also have to get the wording just exactly so. It is important to be specifically vague. The wording must be specific enough to pass muster on an acceptable decision and explanation but vague enough to leave room for interpretation for DC and future state law cases that will be brought forth.
It is the only bureaucratically acceptable way to consistently present the obvious in an ambiguously specific litany of meaningless words.
(I'll take points for creativity and apologize for the pessimistic cynicism at the same time)