Skip to comments.SCOTUS Gun Case Denials Signal Conservative Justices Don’t Trust Roberts With The Second Amendment
Posted on 06/17/2020 7:13:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
The fact that four justices who complained that the court needed to hear Second Amendment cases passed on 10 chances to do so tells us much about the courts 'swing vote.'
The U.S. Supreme Courts decision to pass on nearly a dozen gun-rights-related cases is breathtaking, not in the denial of hearing any, but in the seeming admission that the conservative associate justices think Chief Justice John Roberts cant be trusted to protect the Bill of Rights.
The nations top court denied writ of certiorari to 10 cases. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry trade association, submitted amicus curiae briefs in two of those cases.
Those cases, Worman v. Healey and Mance v. Barr, centered on fundamental rights to acquire firearms to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Courts denial lets stand Massachusetts ban on modern sporting rifles and a ban on the sale of handguns across state lines. The court also denied Pena v. Horan, a challenge to Californias Unsafe Handgun Act, which bans handguns in common use for lawful purposes.
The denial of writ of certiorari tells court-watchers the conservative associate justices dont trust Roberts to uphold the liberties as written in the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court requires just four of the nine justices to agree to hear an appeal for the nations highest court to take the case. Those watching gun cases were hoping for good reason that finally, after a decade of silence from the court, the four votes were now there.
Four justices, including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, have all recently expressed frustration with the courts unwillingness to address infringements on Second Amendment rights. Thomas previously noted, “[T]he Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.
That pattern, disappointedly, hasnt altered. In his dissent this week, Thomas again drew attention to this fact in the denial of certiorari in Rogers v Gurbir. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way, Thomas said.
These four associate justices could have voted to hear any of the 10 petitions, but not all four chose to bring the cases before the court. Thats telling in as much as it is disturbing. The fact that four justices who complained the court needed to hear Second Amendment cases passed on 10 chances to do so tells us much about the courts swing vote.
One or more of the conservative justices are in essence telling us Roberts cannot be trusted to interpret the Second Amendment as written, or faithfully apply the precedents of the Heller and McDonald decisions. He ruled in the 5-4 majority in both those cases.
By refusing for more than a decade to accept any Second Amendment cases, the court has allowed the lower appellate courts to blatantly defy the courts precedents and invent a Second Amendment analysis not rooted in the Constitution and inconsistent with the courts landmark 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions.
Heller protected the pre-existing individual rights to keep and bear firearms that are in common use. Nearly 18 million modern sporting rifles are in circulation today, used for lawful purposes daily, including recreational target shooting, hunting, and self-defense. McDonald found that Second Amendment rights are enforceable against states seeking to deny those rights of law-abiding citizens. Regrettably, in the Roberts court, the Second Amendment is a constitutional orphan that will be treated as a second-class right.
Court-watchers have long said its important to have the right case before the Supreme Court on gun rights. Thats essentially what Kavanaugh wrote in his partial dissent of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.
There was plenty for the justices to choose from on the 10 cases they just passed over. They could have easily found cases that would have called for the Supreme Court to faithfully apply Heller and McDonald precedents, stand for the Bill of Rights, and send a clear message to lower courts to stop legislating from the bench. Instead, the four conservative justices are now telling America its not just the case that must be solid, but also the court.
That means the 2020 election will put the direction of the Supreme Court back into focus, just as the 2016 election did. Four years ago, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., decided not to act on President Barack Obamas nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. That made the ideological control of the Supreme Court a central question in the election that propelled Donald Trump to office, resulting in the nominations and confirmations of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The future of the court once again hangs in the balance given the age of the justices, particularly Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who missed a months worth of argument this session and has battled serious health issues. At 87, shes the courts eldest justice and has vowed to continue to serve.
The justices’ sudden silence speaks volumes. The Roberts court sees the Heller and McDonald decisions as dead letters. Its going to take a new justice to stand up for American rights. The next president and Senate will determine whether the Second Amendment will mean anything in America or whether it will continue to be treated as a constitutional orphan.
Now this makes sense.
Impeach John Roberts!
Who appointed Roberts to the court anyway?
Yep. Said this the other day when the cert denials were being discussed on here. The four want to force the lower courts to treat the 2A as a real right, but they are not yet sure cowardly Roberts will see it through, so they vote for cert (and dissent from denial) in different cases rather than all voting to grant the same one which would have the Court hearing the case and possibly creating bad precedent.
Roberts is unpredictable. Because it only takes four justices to put a case on the docket, if Roberts were a solid anti-2A person, the liberal bloc could get one of these cases on the docket. If Roberts were a solid 2A guy, the conservative bloc would push this onto the docket.
It’s an open secret. Everybody knows Justice Roberts has turned a hard left. It’s no longer a surprise, though still a disappointment.
I’m almost certain that Barack Obama and his leftie Deep State friends have something on Roberts. Something big. More and more he is going against almost his entire career track record prior to the Supreme Court.
Roberts is compromised. To me that has been evident since the Obamacare ruling.
What you’ve just written is exactly why, if the Flynn case gests to SCOTUS, Flynn and DOJ are likely to lose. Remember, Obola has sent up the Bat Signal.
I was hoping it was only temporary, unfortunately it isn’t. President Trump surely fell for him. He isnt the first one who fell for a Supreme Court Justice and unfortunately won’t be the last one either.
This stand sends a message to the state regulators that they can now implement any gun legislation they want.
Roberts is NOT comprised Roberts is a LIB given to us by a LIB POTUS Bush!! Stop making excuses he was NEVER a conservative justice, just as Bush was NEVER a conservative he was just LIB light!!!
We need committed right-wing activists, just as the Left nominates committed left-wing activists. Sneer all you want at Sonia Sotomayer and her credentials - she’s a guaranteed left-wing SC vote on every issue. We do not need any more “textualists” recommended by the Federalist Society who are savaged by Democrats during the nomination process and who then promptly betray conservatives once they are seated. We need the right-wing equivalent of Sonia Sotomayer - a reliable vote for conservative causes on the SC.
The fact the only case they took is one that was already settled is all you need to know. They are not doing anything until after the election.
Roberts is OWNED.
Recall the mysterious appearance of 200-some odd FBI records in the West Wing of the Clinton WH circa 1996?
Like HRC, Obama’s people have similar intel on him and his background/foibles.
A quick websearch will show you a flight manifest on Epstein’s Lolita Express with John Roberts’ name in it. So far I haven’t seen anyone refute its authenticity with any level of expertise.
Why do you think the FBI scoured Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile island estate AND his house in NYC so quickly after his arrest?
Agreed. Scalia said of Thomas that he was somewhat crazy for basing his decisions on Natural Law theory. We need more rather than fewer Natural Law theorists.
If what you say is correct, why did Roberts vote for the Heller and McDonald cases, which uphold the Second Amendment, and which the left universally loathe.
GWB may not have been a libtard but he definitely is all in for globohomo. When we are told by Conservative Inc. that such and such justice is conservative, what they are really saying is that justice wont get in the way of megacorps.
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.