SCOTUS thread

[Cuddles]

thread to track political shenanigans of this partisan body

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...in-wake-of-supreme-court-decision/ar-AA139Jkx
Court rulings wipe out gun laws in wake of Supreme Court decision

Federal judges have struck down gun restrictions in the months since a Supreme Court decision that expanded Second Amendment rights, and experts say there is likely more to come.

A judge in West Virginia this month cited the Supreme Court case when he struck down a federal law that required guns to have serial numbers. So did a judge in Texas who ruled last month that people under criminal indictments can still possess guns, and a judge who this month tossed New York’s prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms in Times Square, summer camps, subways and theaters.

More than a dozen other challenges to gun control laws are pending in federal courts, which legal experts say could leave holes in efforts to curb gun violence and the use of weapons in crimes

 

[El OchoCinco]

thread to track political shenanigans of this partisan body

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...in-wake-of-supreme-court-decision/ar-AA139Jkx
Court rulings wipe out gun laws in wake of Supreme Court decision

Federal judges have struck down gun restrictions in the months since a Supreme Court decision that expanded Second Amendment rights, and experts say there is likely more to come.

A judge in West Virginia this month cited the Supreme Court case when he struck down a federal law that required guns to have serial numbers. So did a judge in Texas who ruled last month that people under criminal indictments can still possess guns, and a judge who this month tossed New York’s prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms in Times Square, summer camps, subways and theaters.

More than a dozen other challenges to gun control laws are pending in federal courts, which legal experts say could leave holes in efforts to curb gun violence and the use of weapons in crimes

Some of these make no sense. Private places of business have a right to ban guns on their property which we have seen in Va and Texas which are states with plenty of licensed gun carriers.

Serial numbers on guns.....this is 100% political because the rule is any minute restriction on a gun is determined to be a wholesale attack on 2A so the judges becomes such pussies.

Look at what the federal court said in that registration case:

Because the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, only those regulations that would have been considered constitutional then can be constitutional now.

What a bag of horsehit...that is like saying because only rifles existed in 1791, the 2nd A refers only to hunting rifles and all other guns are not protected. You think that would fly?

The Court says nothing in 1791 shows support for having serial numbers on guns but it is somehow magically clear that only law abiding citizens can carry a gun (never says that in 2nd A) so limiting felons from owning guns is within the 2A....

Judges dont read the law anymore, they just decide what their political party tells them... look here....even the courts get the same decision opposite each other:

In another case, Judge David Counts of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found unconstitutional a ban on people under felony indictment from having a gun. There, Counts wrote that he doesn’t know “the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a post-Bruen world.”

“This Court does not know the answers; it must only try to faithfully follow Bruen’s framework,” Counts wrote.

So the court does not know the answers all of a sudden when they want to strike down a restriction???

 

[Cuddles]

Some of these make no sense. Private places of business have a right to ban guns on their property which we have seen in Va and Texas which are states with plenty of licensed gun carriers.

Serial numbers on guns.....this is 100% political because the rule is any minute restriction on a gun is determined to be a wholesale attack on 2A so the judges becomes such pussies.

Look at what the federal court said in that registration case:

Because the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, only those regulations that would have been considered constitutional then can be constitutional now.

What a bag of horsehit...that is like saying because only rifles existed in 1791, the 2nd A refers only to hunting rifles and all other guns are not protected. You think that would fly?

The Court says nothing in 1791 shows support for having serial numbers on guns but it is somehow magically clear that only law abiding citizens can carry a gun (never says that in 2nd A) so limiting felons from owning guns is within the 2A....

Judges dont read the law anymore, they just decide what their political party tells them... look here....even the courts get the same decision opposite each other:

In another case, Judge David Counts of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found unconstitutional a ban on people under felony indictment from having a gun. There, Counts wrote that he doesn’t know “the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a post-Bruen world.”

“This Court does not know the answers; it must only try to faithfully follow Bruen’s framework,” Counts wrote.

So the court does not know the answers all of a sudden when they want to strike down a restriction???

black powder muskets only! I hope Texas still lets those under federal indictment vote lest they be caught in hypocrisy again

 

[El OchoCinco]

black powder muskets only! I hope Texas still lets those under federal indictment vote lest they be caught in hypocrisy again

I think the Supreme Court should adhere to its precedent... 2nd A should be read in light of what was avaialble in 1791. The court liked to say repeated they look to 1791 to see what was in place historically and then magically said the 2nd A did not have a fixed definition based on what guns were around at the time.

As Justice "My Wife Owns my Balls" Thomas wrote: Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated.

So I find it funny how a Justice can find something locked into the original intent when it suits them but find other things needing to evolve when it supports their personal bias .

 

[Cuddles]

I think the Supreme Court should adhere to its precedent... 2nd A should be read in light of what was avaialble in 1791. The court liked to say repeated they look to 1791 to see what was in place historically and then magically said the 2nd A did not have a fixed definition based on what guns were around at the time.

As Justice "My Wife Owns my Balls" Thomas wrote: Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated.

So I find it funny how a Justice can find something locked into the original intent when it suits them but find other things needing to evolve when it supports their personal bias .

It's evangelical/biblical logic. "Let me take this shit I agree with literally and interpret this shit to fit to something agreeable here."

 

[Cuddles]

dems need their own Ed Blum

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/30/affirmative-action-supreme-court-harvard-unc

The end of affirmative action, at least on college campuses, is almost certainly near.

The big picture: The Supreme Court said in 2003 that colleges and universities could consider race as a factor when deciding which students to admit, for the sake of building a diverse student body. But now, the much more conservative court appears to be changing its mind.

Driving the news: The court is set to hear oral arguments on Monday over the admissions processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, both of which give a little extra weight to applicants who come from certain underrepresented groups.

• Life is full of surprises, but the court has sent just about every conceivable signal that it’s likely to put a stop to those sorts of policies.

Why it matters: Harvard and UNC — supported by a host of other schools, as well as business organizations — argue that diversity is essential to the educational experience and that the only effective way to ensure diversity is to make it an explicit part of the admissions process.

• But they’ll be making that argument to a court that is extremely skeptical of any sort of racial preference.
• “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 2007 opinion about the use of race when assigning kids to public schools.
• From voting rights to K-12 education to employment law and probably now college admissions, the court over the past several years has consistently knocked down programs that tried to correct racial inequities by explicitly taking race into account.

This is all largely one man’s doing. Conservative activist Ed Blum has organized and funded a slew of high-profile lawsuits explicitly designed to get the court to strike down affirmative action.

• He orchestrated a 2013 case in which a white student sued because she didn’t get into the University of Texas — and the sequel, in which the same student came back to the high court again in 2016.
• This time around, the named plaintiffs are not only white students but also Asian Americans, who say they’ve been discriminated against because of the way Harvard and UNC give preference to applications from Black and Hispanic students.
• This is not a particularly secretive endeavor. Blum is open about the fact that this is, effectively, a campaign, and that he is the campaign manager.
• "I'm a one-trick pony," Blum recently told Reuters. "I hope and care about ending these racial classifications and preferences in our public policy."
• Blum also had a hand in the landmark case that nullified a key section of the Voting Rights Act — another instance in which the conservative court said policies designed to offset a history of discrimination had outlived their usefulness.

Between the lines: The fact that it’s a 6-3 conservative court is part of the reason legal experts believe affirmative action is likely to lose, but there are other signs, as well.

• Lower courts in both the Harvard and UNC lawsuits upheld the schools’ admissions policies. If a majority of the Supreme Court thought those were the right decisions, there wouldn’t be much reason to agree to hear an appeal.
• The Supreme Court also took the UNC case before a federal appeals court had ruled. Taking a case faster than usual, with no disagreement among lower courts, is widely seen as a sign that the Supreme Court wants to at least chip away at its affirmative-action precedents, if not overturn them — and as we’ve all learned, this court is willing to go all the way when it wants to.
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has recused herself from the Harvard case. She was unlikely to be on the winning side anyway, but without her vote, it’ll be that much harder for the liberals to cobble together a majority.

What’s next: Oral arguments begin at 10am Monday. The Harvard case will go first, then UNC. You can listen to the arguments live on the court’s website.

• A ruling is expected by the summer.

 

[El OchoCinco]

the problem with the whning complainers is they think that colleges have a system where if your numbers are X and someone else's numbers are X-1, then you shoudl automatically get in.

Colleges have made it clear this has never really been the case. If that were true then Havard would have all of its applicants with 1600 SATs and 4.5 GPAs. it is clear that colleges look at recommendations (non-numerical), essays (non-numerical), extra curricular activities (non numerical) make up of classes taken (subjective criteria). Schools also take into account geography because no school wants 90% of their students from the same state.

Schools want diversity of geography, education, background and male/female. The SC staed that quotas of fixed numbers were not allowed but simply consiering race as one of many factors is acceptable.

White students complaining they did not get in because lesser qualified non white students got in to harvard is some whining bitchiness because maybe the white kid was one of thousands of the same applications with nothing more to add. There are plenty of high SAT, high GPA kids with no activities or sports because they simply go to school all the time and become class president. Universities dont want 4000 robots in their freshman class, they want an active vibrant community that will go out and serve as productive alumni.

 

[Cuddles]

the problem with the whning complainers is they think that colleges have a system where if your numbers are X and someone else's numbers are X-1, then you shoudl automatically get in.

Colleges have made it clear this has never really been the case. If that were true then Havard would have all of its applicants with 1600 SATs and 4.5 GPAs. it is clear that colleges look at recommendations (non-numerical), essays (non-numerical), extra curricular activities (non numerical) make up of classes taken (subjective criteria). Schools also take into account geography because no school wants 90% of their students from the same state.

Schools want diversity of geography, education, background and male/female. The SC staed that quotas of fixed numbers were not allowed but simply consiering race as one of many factors is acceptable.

White students complaining they did not get in because lesser qualified non white students got in to harvard is some whining bitchiness because maybe the white kid was one of thousands of the same applications with nothing more to add. There are plenty of high SAT, high GPA kids with no activities or sports because they simply go to school all the time and become class president. Universities dont want 4000 robots in their freshman class, they want an active vibrant community that will go out and serve as productive alumni.

Which begs the question, don't the rules already dismiss the "it's racist argument"? I can reverse Jim Crow this shit to make my quota have geographic/income/hardship variance w/o making it about race and still have ethnic representation that way?

 

[El OchoCinco]

Which begs the question, don't the rules already dismiss the "it's racist argument"? I can reverse Jim Crow this shit to make my quota have geographic/income/hardship variance w/o making it about race and still have ethnic representation that way?

The previous SC decided this issue but as we know, this SC does not care and could decide to change all the rules. The SC telling universities that they cannot strive for a diverse student body is the ultimate reach simply because a few white and asian students did not get into Harvard.

NEWS FLASH... harvard accepts 3% of applicants. A significant number of white, asian, black, martian, feline ..etc. students did not get into Harvard.

 

[Cuddles]

The previous SC decided this issue but as we know, this SC does not care and could decide to change all the rules. The SC telling universities that they cannot strive for a diverse student body is the ultimate reach simply because a few white and asian students did not get into Harvard.

NEWS FLASH... harvard accepts 3% of applicants. A significant number of white, asian, black, martian, feline ..etc. students did not get into Harvard.

"state rights" amirite?