Posted on 05/27/2008 7:51:39 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
The Supreme Court is meeting to issue opinions and announce whether it has accepted any new cases.
Major cases still undecided include the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and whether people convicted of raping children can be given the death penalty.
The court's term ends in late June.
I don't think that the ruling will be so sweeping. Such a ruling would automatically decide the 14th Amendment incorporation issue, which isn't before the Court. They will address (IMHO) only restrictions on the Fed.gov, as DC's government is a wholly-owned subsidiary (i.e. it literally exists because of a Congressional resolution and, therefore, is subject to the same restrictions on its actions).
I don't know the result (though I know what it SHOULD be), but one thing I know for certain - there will be more gun cases in federal court, and soon. If the SC substantially or wholly upholds the Circuit Court decision, then a case will be filed against Chicago using this case as a basis for the claim, and reasoning that the 14th must apply the restrictions on the fed.gov to any state or subsidiary thereof. My understanding is that the case is ready to be filed, with just a bit of detail work and polishing necessary.
Oh it get's much worse than that. With her dead body on the front porch and her infant trapped beneath her body the agents would call out to Randy still forted up in the cabin: Hey Randy, we hear the baby cryin.' Why don't you just stick your head out anc check on the poor thing? They finally got Bo Gritz the highly decorated special forces soldier to come in and mediate the surrender. Later, famed defense attorney Gerry Spence took his case for free and won on showing how poor the government had constructed their own case without actually even putting on his own defense.
I remember the stuff about the Aryan Nations, whose property just happened to border Weaver's. But Weaver was an isolationist. He wasn't a so called racist or segregationist as the press tried to paint him, he just wanted to be left alone with his family and the feds wouldn't let him. Understand, I'm not in any way trying to put a nice face on this. I also find it interesting that everytime you see our government acting like nazi storm troops against John Q. Citizen, somewhere lurking around is a case for the BATFE. Then if they screw it up, the case goes to the FBI and gives them a shot ('scuse the wording) at screwing the pooch. Like with the Weaver arrest.
I know the whole entrapment story with the shortened shotguns. Randy should have gone directly to the US Attorney when the whole scheme was dumped on him. Or better yet, the PRESS. Also, even if you're given the wrong date to appear in court, it is still your responsibility to be proactive and find out where and when you're supposed to appear and then....GO! Randy was still stupid in this. But not as stupid as the idiot feds who tried to pull this one off in the first place. There was one of them who wasn't stupid, he's a murderer: LON HORIUCHI was the FBI sniper that popped the wife. I heard he was also at Waco, giving "advice" during the standoff.
Alright. Before we go consuming material published by Loompanics, it should be noted that this is the SAME publishing operation that gave that notorious — and egregiously wrong — tax evader, Irwin Schiff, a platform by publishing his amusing work “The Federal Mafia”.
To assert that Loompanics is source of highly credible material requires — how shall I say it? — the “suspension of disbelief”.
Not saying all of what you posted is invalid, just that the specific cite doesn’t help the case you were making.
I was making the case that opinions differ on the effective health of the BOR. Except for quartering soldiers. I think we can all agree that we're solid on that one.
Agreed. My *version* is a Ruger Mk 512 (MkII with a target bull barrel), and any pistol in that series is a certifiable "tack driver", extremely accurate...
the infowarrior
Let's not forget what went down in his original arrest in February of that year. The federal agents started the "takedown" by physically assaulting Mrs Weaver tackling her to the ground, which in Feb in Idaho would be covered in snow, so any rocks would be hidden. Now, Mrs Weaver was not the subject of an arrest warrant, so where do they get off with this?
This is violation of rights under color of law, and in my mind, is arguably the reason that she ended up dead. The only "excuse" ever given for this was that they believed Mrs Weaver was carrying a gun in her purse. Now unless one of those federal agents was named Clark Kent, the only way they could have known this was by checking local concealed carry records. So, she was assaulted by federal agents for simply *legally* exercising her Second Amendment rights. Think about it...
the infowarrior
Anyone know where he is today?
I’ll see if I can’t find a copy. Thanks! :-)
There seem to be plenty available through the Amazon-affiliated used-booksellers.
It’s been conjectured that he’s holed-up at an FBI facility at Quantico, VA.
That’s what I was thinking. I’ll give the title to my wife and it will “magically” appear. :-)
That pics a beauty!
That dirty, double-crossing bastard! How dare he run off with Richard Nixon.
Very common misconception. Commonly believed right here on FR in fact. However, totally wrong. Only fourteen states require any sort of process or request to have voting rights restored after completion of all supervised release, upon completion of parole or simply upon release from prison. The other thirty four have automatic restore provisions. There are two states, Vermont and Maine, that allow voting from prison.
However, totally wrong.
No, it is totally correct to argue that States have the absolute right - settled law - to exclude certain classes from voting.
I have so filed and argued exactly that without any plausible retort.
You can argue it, but there is not a single state anywhere in the U.S. that absolutly excludes felons from voting.
Just like SCOTUS left no doubt about killing babies is a "right". (Wrong!!!) There is no "right to kill" except in self defense.
If you haven’t also got a copy of “Up Front”, that would be good to add to the list, too.
Thanks!
Do I understand correctly, then, that Clement argued a grabber's brief in Silviera vs. Lockyer?
And is he,then, carrying water for Pres. Bush in arguing such briefs? We know the Bush Administration has twice now -- in Emerson and now in Heller, argued that RKBA is both an individual right, and one that can be regulated out the wazoo. In Heller they're arguing for every restrictive federal gun law ever written. Perhaps DoJ and the Solicitor General think they have a positive obligation to play goalie for every federal law on the books, but I don't buy it.
Further: If Clement is getting inside whispers from the network of Supreme Court clerks, then does that mean he's a Harvard guy tied into Laurence Tribe's intelligence network of former students serving as clerks for the Justices?
Tribe himself has said, all unwillingly, that his reading of 2A is that it's very broad in the rights it confirms to individuals and binds to the States. Is he nevertheless logrolling behind the scenes (and maybe losing, if Clement resigned) for a restrictive ruling that favors the Solicitor General's interpretation of a broad, but infinitely infringible 2A?
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.