as the Blackrobed military [from Malta, Epstein Island and Yale]
are "assigned" ... by their wives. What a coincidence (not).
Posted on 03/26/2025 6:48:30 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be issuing Opinions from the October 2024 term this morning at 10:00.
Scotusblog will be live-blogging the opinions here:
A list of the cases pending for this term are located here:
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852 [Arg: 10.8.2024]
Issue(s): (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.
Medical Marijuana v. Horn, No. 23-365 [Arg: 10.15.2024]
Issue(s): Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
And of course there are numerous remaining cases from the other sittings.
Another edition of: “What can Roberts do now to please his leftist masters?”
Gonna be an interesting one.
We have the first case, by Justice Jackson.
It is United States v. Miller. It is 8-1, with Gorsuch (!) dissenting.
This is a bankruptcy case. The court holds that the bankruptcy code’s waiver of sovereign immunity only waives sovereign immunity with respect to the federal cause of action created by Section 544(b) of the bankruptcy code, which gives the trustee the power to avoid certain transfers that would be “voidable under applicable law” — that is, voidable outside of bankruptcy proceedings.
It does not abrogate sovereign immunity for state law claims nested within that federal claim, the court holds today.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-824_2d93.pdf
Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.
Could you dumb that decision down to ‘good’ or ‘bad’? Thanks
We have VanDerStok.
It is 7-2.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf
Thomas and Alito dissent.
The court holds that the ATF’s rule regulating “ghost guns” is not inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.
Vanderstock: The court holds that the ATF’s rule regulating “ghost guns” is not inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.
7-2, Alito and Thomas dissenting.
The Gun Control Act, Gorsuch writes, authorizes ATF to regulate “any weapon . . . which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”
Not a positive step.
Could you dumb that decision down to ‘good’ or ‘bad’? Thanks
On the bankruptcy case, I’m not sure whether it is good or bad. I got totally convinced on the double negatives in the decision.
the Vanderstock case is definitely bad.
The court holds that the ATF’s rule regulating “ghost guns” is not inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.
The Gun Control Act, Gorsuch writes, authorizes ATF to regulate “any weapon . . . which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”
This language, he says, creates two requirements. First, there must be a “weapon.” Second, the weapon must be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, designed to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way.
The Fifth Circuit, Gorsuch writes, said that the ATF rule addressing ghost guns is always invalid because no “weapons parts kit” can ever satisfy both requirements. But the court says that “at least some kits will satisfy both.”
This case was vs Pam Bondi, who lost.
Armored truck transporting gold seen in the area?.
At the end, Gorsuch rejects the challengers’ plea to apply the rule of lenity or the rule of constitutional avoidance to resolve ambiguities in the Gun Control Act in their favor.
He says that neither of those rules “has any role to play where ‘text, context, and structure’ decide the case.”
“The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapons parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed. Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that the “statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapons-parts kits, and weapons-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm.’ That should end the case.”
Alito contends that the majority “decides this case on a ground that was not raised or decided below and that was not the focus of the briefing or argument in this Court.”
That’s all for today.
“convinced” should have been “confused”. Auto-incorrect is out to get me today.
it is the gun Control Act that must be found unconstitutional.
shall not be infringed means just that.
Good to know we have a leftist SCOTUS.
As I've said; there are only 2 Justices that ALWAYS follow the Constitution, and not the politics. That's Thomas, and Alito. The others, are un-dependable, and bend to the instructions they get from their "Handlers", aka, the Deep State).
The Lawfare continues, all the way to the USSC for the forseeable future.
That is an interesting case
If the argument from Alito and Thomas is that the kits are NOT guns, then would it be correct to assume that the 2nd Amendment does NOT apply?
Hmmm... A lead pipe (or any pipe for that matter) can be used as a weapon as well as being made into a pipe bomb. So do all pipes need to be serialized and registered?
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.