Posted on 11/03/2021 6:46:33 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
Here is the link for live audio for the 2nd Amendment Case that is being heard today:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
Thank you for the link.
Wednesday, November 3
20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE &
PISTOL ASSN. V. BRUEN
(70 minutes for argument)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2021.pdf
_______________________________________________
Wednesday, November 3, 2021
No. 20–843. New York State Rife & Pistol Association,
Inc., et al. v. Kevin P. Bruen, in His Offcial Capacity as
Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
Certiorari to the C. A. 2nd Circuit.
For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.
For respondents: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General,
New York, N. Y.; and Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy
Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington,
D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
(70 minutes for argument.)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/hearinglists/HearingList-November2021.pdf
It’s clear that Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer are against the petitioner’s position here.
Rabidly so.
I’m waiting for Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts to ask questions.
Or perhaps Justice Thomas will break his traditional silence.
Thomas already has. He’s clearly in favor of the 2nd Amendment here.
Roberts just asked his first question. He’s trying to craft places that would be “off limits.”
Why the attorney doesn't steer his answers back to that original question is frustrating me.
Barrett is echoing the “sensitive place” question that Roberts brought up. That’s not great.
Alito is coming in with a great question here, saying “Why don’t we look at the core purpose.”
Breyer is now bringing up the “blood running in the streets” argument if everybody carries concealed firearms in NYC.
Exactly.
The question is not what England may have thought 300 years prior to the 2nd A but rather what the founders AND their constituents thought after just successfully concluding a bloody and costly revolt against a tyrant.
So it’s clear that Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas are on our side.
Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are not.
Roberts is clearly looking for a way to put this into “intermediate scrutiny.”
I didn’t like Barrett’s sole question.
Kavanaugh hasn’t spoke yet.
Kavanaugh finally asked a question.
He’s on our side.
We have 4.
We need Barrett or Roberts.
Kavanaugh speaking now. He asked if the attorney would not object to a ‘shall issue’ regime.
He’s clearly on our side. We need one of Roberts or Barrett.
I didn’t like their questions.
I presume he's referring to the victims shooting back and decreasing the Democrat voter base?
Ok. Barrett’s last question about using the 1st Amendment as an analogy is better for us.
I think we have 5.
Comey Barrett’s second question regards “time, place, and manner” restrictions. Again, get back to the core “may issue” argument, not restrictions on a license!
However, using the 1st Amendment as an analogy is good. I think she’s on our side, but not as clearly as Kavanaugh is.
Much better question from Roberts. I think we have him too.
I feel pretty good now.
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.