Posted on 06/20/2020 2:13:32 PM PDT by DoodleBob
The most likely explanation is that neither of the Court’s ideological factions was confident enough of Roberts’s support to risk granting certiorari.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard — and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Court’s reviewing Second Amendment issues.
Justice Thomas has been dissenting from the Court’s refusal to review those issues for years, and he did so again on Monday, writing to protest the Court’s decision to pass on Rogers v. Grewal, a case addressing New Jersey’s unconstitutional handgun-carry-permit laws:
This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public; and resolve a square Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiable need restrictions on that right. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Justice Alito authored the landmark 2010 McDonald v. Chicago opinion, which incorporated Second Amendment rights to cover the states, and recently filed a scathing dissent to the Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York:
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
With Friends like Roberts, be glad they did.
Because like all leftist stooges, they look forward, with gay anticipation, to the upcoming civil war.
I understand that millions of previously ambivalent United States' citizens have purchased firearms, for the first time, so they can defend themselves in that civil war.
It's a war the Democrats and the Supreme Court anticipate with glee. I hope the good guys win.
Count your blessing s that he did.
I think at this point the left can reliably count on the turncoat Roberts to take their side in everything. He’s shown no indication that he wants to help Trump or any conservatives with anything.
I should have said the leftist stooges on the court, including Roberts.
Uh, because he’s a closet homosexual globalist Bushie?
Not sure why a lengthy editorial is needed...I am so sick of editorials...like what Mark Steyn said, get busy fixing stuff and less writing.
Anything attached with Trumps name on it will not pass Roberts approval. His dislike of Trump will rule.
The explanation sounds pretty good, until you realize ten
bad rulings are now going to remain on the books.
We should never have justices who help either side of the political debate. They are supposed to interpret the constitution the way an umpire interprets rules. If it hurts conservatives but is legally sound, so be it. But Roberts has shown he is more interested in trying to shape society to meet his imagined utopia than he is about the constitution. I would rather see them punt second amendment cases until we have more originalists in the court.
ANYONE who doesn’t realize that this is a SPIRITUAL BATTLE going on in this country is blind, deaf and crazy. There just simply is no other way to explain Roberts’ vile and disingenuous rulings. He is a pawn of the dark side. Along with Romney, Graham, Collins, Murkowski, and of course every last stinking democrat. I would also add one that keeps visiting the dark and the light: McConnell.
Gorsuch and Kavanuagh are rock-solid on the 2A. Roberts is the wildcard. Wait until Buzzy goes to the buzzards.
I do NOT want to see 2AMD cases before this USSC. With only three or maybe 2 1/2 conservatives on the Court there is no good than come out of them.
Roberts would have a chance with a 2AMD case to make his name known for generations by basically repealing the 2nd. We have over two centuries imbued the Court with the definitive say on what is Constitutional and what is not. Th Court is effectively our lawgiver now and can and will rule however it wants to change Society and the Constitution to some agenda of an ideological group and will get no opposition. That Final Say is itself NOT in the Constitution.
But the truth is, incredible gun rights inroads at the State level have been made over the past 30 years. Indeed, only the bluest of the blue states have may- or no-issue laws. That has been the result of countless hours and grass-roots blood, sweat and tears on the part of Americans.
While our bretheren in NJ, NY, CA, MA, HI, and MD remain with bad laws, I really don't wish for the inroads elsewhere be risked with a bad SCOTUS ruling.
Why doesn’t anyone investigate Robert’s Malta bank deposits?
“...The four conservative justices don’t trust Roberts with the 2nd amendment...)”
And who knows now where Gosuck will go?
It’s more than obvious that Roberts has a huge skeleton in his closet.
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.