Posted on 08/13/2019 4:11:53 PM PDT by Kaslin
A handful of Democratic Senators signed onto an amicus curiae brief in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, defending New York City's blatant attack on the Second Amendment. For years, those who live in NYC could transport handguns, as long as it was to a few select gun ranges in the area. If you were a gun owner in NYC and wanted to take your firearm outside of city limits to a different gun range, that wasn't allowed.
The Senators who signed alongside New York City include Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Mazi Hirono (HI), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Dick Durbin (IL) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY).
According to the group, the Supreme Court should not take up this case because the plaintiffs – gun rights advocates – are looking to "thwart gun safety legislation" and have the desire to "expand the Second Amendment." The other argument they make: the Second Amendment and gun control is a political issue and the Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial, not a legislative body.
Translation: gun control proponents have realized this is a lost cause and, if the Supreme Court decided in the case, this could expand gun rights, not restrict them. This case could and would, more than likely, build upon both Heller and McDonald, which protects a person's right to own a firearm in their home for self-protection.
From the brief (emphasis mine):
The judiciary was not intended to settle hypothetical disagreements. The Framers designed Article III courts to adjudicate actual controversies brought by plaintiffs who suffer real-world harm. This reflects the Framers’ intent that the judiciary “may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, 464 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
"Real-world harm."
Apparently being limited to where you can take your handgun for self-protection isn't "real-world harm."
Apparently a city infringing on a person's Second Amendment rights isn't "real world harm."
So tell us, Senators, what exactly do you deem "real world harm?" We're waiting.
The rationale for this long-settled principle is simple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). “It can be tempting for judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the requirements of the law,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomes from the bench. But a judge “is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (Yale Univ. Press 1921). Accordingly, justiciability doctrines, such as standing and mootness, have evolved to serve as an “apolitical limitation on judicial power,” confining the courts to their constitutionally prescribed lane. John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993). In short, courts do not undertake political “projects.” Or at least they should not.
Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court. Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gunsafety regulations. Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law, the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation.
The Supreme Court is the highest law in the land. It is the final decision maker and the protector of our Constitutional rights. The justices are supposed to be unbiased, but guess what? We know they're not. We know that some believe in a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Others believe the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time. Anyone who tries to tell you the Court doesn't have activist judges is straight up lying.
That's why we know RBG, Sotomayor, Bryer and Kagan are pretty much guaranteed to side with liberals. It's why we know Kavanagh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito almost always side with conservatives. Roberts is the toss up.
Democrats can argue that the Court shouldn't get involved in political issues, but it's the dumbest argument they can make. Pretty much every single case the Supreme Court hears is a political issue of some sort. There's a question of Constitutionality that needs to be addressed. If there wasn't, the Court wouldn't get involved.
Gun control proponents, like these Senators, are backtracking because they've realized they put their foot in their mouth. They've realized this case is a big loser for them and it can actually harm their cause.
My understanding is that the defendants have granted the relief sought by the plaintiffs and are now pleading that this renders the case moot.
Is that correct?
Oddly, the quoted SCOTUS case of Obergefill v. Hodges regiens in the lower Circus courts that have been blocking POTUS Trump.
Oddly, the quoted SCOTUS case of Obergefill v. Hodges regiens in the lower Circus courts that have been blocking POTUS Trump.
Considering that the wacked-out Democrats double-dawg dared them . . . what else could they do? Maybe if the Dims (they are called dim for a reason) might have sent it back to the lower court.
Uh, no. It's not anything of the sort.
“expand the Second Amendment”??? Uh...Whut?
If you mean recover the Amendment from the clutches of the lefturds who want it to go away, I’ll agree.
But, ‘expand’? Really?
Only the myopic libturds could see it this way.
Well; I guess that depends on “WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD IS IS”, doesn’t it?
Thanks to the Websters Dictionary of Willie (bent dick) Clinton.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
A Right given by GOD, only put into simple words by Men.
Gates was not the only famous name to hop aboard Epstein's plane either, with the serial pedophile also welcoming famed newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino and a passenger identified as John Roberts.
He flew with Epstein on at least two occasions according to flight records, from March 22, 2010 and February 10, 2011.
In 2010 the plane with Roberts traveled from Palm Beach to Oakland, and the following year from Palm Beach to Teterboro.
After “threatening” SCOTUS, I hope SCOTUS outright hands these communist bassturds their azzes over this.
Ignorance is definitely bliss... There are no "Constitutional rights"... There are only "Constitutional protection" of our unalienable rights...
Morons never fail to get confused between their toes and their nose...
I agree with those Senators. The court has not been well for about 60 years and has caused our nation great harm.. Taking the Bible out of schools, Roe v. Wade, approving Sodomite marriage etc. are all examples of the great harm bestowed upon us by the Supreme Court.
Whoa! Right on target.
NYC made a blatantly unconstitutional law infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of Americans. They defended it to the hilt for years. Then when the law was challenged and after it became clear the SCOTUS was likely to take the case they suddenly flipped and withdrew the law hoping that by doing so they could claim the plaintiffs lacked standing. This would leave them free to simply re-enact the law once the case was dropped. Furthermore, them quickly repealing it shows everybody they knew it was unconstitutional all along.
Knowing they’re going to get their teeth kicked in, Donkey senators are now trying to threaten the SCOTUS to intimidate them into not taking the case and upholding the constitution. The Leftists are that desperate to infringe on Americans 2nd amendment rights.
We need Ruth Bader Ginsberg to die very very soon.
Exactly. Like the 1st amendment, this is a national right. State and local governments have no right to infringe upon our rights. My rights as a US citizen should not vary because of the city, county, or state that I happen to visit or live in.
Hold my Beer!
Court needs to once and for all say what the Founders meant by “Shall Not Be infringed” After all the Founders wrote quite explicitly about it.
The trend since the early 90s when Newt’s Contract with America ceded one party control of the congress and senate since the 1920s for the first time to a republican congress, followed by a senate, and a seesaw battle ever since. The DNC has been unhinged since losing their 70 year control of Washington. According to some the Red-Blue State divide will eventually result in a republican senate majority and alternating control of the congress. If voter ID is approved and the voter roles purged to only US Citizen voters, congress will become much more competitive and their will be fewer congressional state reps in places like NY, CA, etc.
maaaan...that would make a great t-shirt
As though Obergfell was not entrance into the political and social realm! Social engineering by 5 unelected in black robes, purporting to overturn traditional marriage amendments in how many state Constitutions???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.