Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[xtry51]

There is no such thing as too few laws.

The next constitution must more aggressively limit the ability for law to grow unchecked.

More freedom is always better than more government.

 

[Hoover]

SCOTUS should have unilateral authority to protect freedom and strike any law that restricts freedom at will. The idea cases take years is absurd. A 2A case should take 60 seconds.

"Does this law prevent citizens from obtaining, owning, carrying or using a weapon? Yes? Struck down and everyone who passed this law goes to prison for treason."

SCOTUS only hears 80cases a year, there are thousands of cases filed each year in the federal system alone. Rarely are cases simple, they have very complex legal questions which affect past and future cases. You greatly misunderstand how the courts work.

Also, it’s insane that you want to vest enormous power in one branch, especially the judiciary which is unelected and it’s extremely difficult to remove judges/justices. Sotomayor, Jackson and kagan are very liberal. A if they were joined by two more liberal, would you still want that court to have almost unlimited power?

That’s insane. I want limited govt, wanting an unelected branch to have the such unlimited power is the antithesis of limited govt.

 

[Hoover]

Uhhhhhh... no?

Methinks you're putting ENTIRELY too much power on one branch of government, dude. Judges make mistakes too.

He should look up Stephen Reinhardt formerly of the 9th circuit. Some judges have agendas too. With them being unelected and extremely difficult to remove, they can flaunt their agenda like Reinhardt did with no consequences.

 

[xtry51]

SCOTUS only hears 80cases a year, there are thousands of cases filed each year in the federal system alone. Rarely are cases simple, they have very complex legal questions which affect past and future cases. You greatly misunderstand how the courts work.

Also, it’s insane that you want to vest enormous power in one branch, especially the judiciary which is unelected and it’s extremely difficult to remove judges/justices. Sotomayor, Jackson and kagan are very liberal. A if they were joined by two more liberal, would you still want that court to have almost unlimited power?

That’s insane. I want limited govt, wanting an unelected branch to have the such unlimited power is the antithesis of limited govt.

The authority to strike down laws should be exercised to the highest degree possible. 99% of laws should not exist. If you cannot recognize the failure to control the size of government, you're part of the problem.

 

[Picton]

The authority to strike down laws should be exercised to the highest degree possible. 99% of laws should not exist. If you cannot recognize the failure to control the size of government, you're part of the problem.

Well hold on there. Nice rhetoric and all, but it's not quite right.

You don't have the checks and balances entirely correct. The check on bad legislation is we, the people. We're supposed to unelect these idiots. And, in turn, they're supposed to fear our ability to do that.

Your problem is that a vast number of your fellow citizens disagree with you about the number and intrusiveness of laws. I'd argue that relatively few of those people are posting here, meaning that no, we're mostly NOT "part of the problem." We're simply outvoted, for the most part.

Your solution would have a few upsides and, potentially, horrific downsides. Do you not admit that activist judges often get things wrong? If you do, then you can't deny that these all-powerful courts you want would often get rid of laws you DO like.

 

[xtry51]

Well hold on there. Nice rhetoric and all, but it's not quite right.

You don't have the checks and balances entirely correct. The check on bad legislation is we, the people. We're supposed to unelect these idiots. And, in turn, they're supposed to fear our ability to do that.

Your problem is that a vast number of your fellow citizens disagree with you about the number and intrusiveness of laws. I'd argue that relatively few of those people are posting here, meaning that no, we're mostly NOT "part of the problem." We're simply outvoted, for the most part.

Your solution would have a few upsides and, potentially, horrific downsides. Do you not admit that activist judges often get things wrong? If you do, then you can't deny that these all-powerful courts you want would often get rid of laws you DO like.

Are you saying an "activist judge" striking laws down is bad for citizens? How is increasing freedom bad for citizens or somehow worse than government that grows forever?

You are implying there is a "good" or "ideal" outcome. This is false. There is no ideal government. The best government is an extremely constrained government. The ideal government is NO GOVERNMENT. But since evil people exist, some government is favorable to no government.

This does not change the historical fact that 100% of the time all governments grow to become more evil than regular criminals. Governments kill more people than criminals because they are allowed to grow unchecked.

 

[Picton]

Governments kill more people than criminals because they are allowed to grow unchecked.

Yes. By the people. Lots of whom disagree with you.

We’re our own worst enemies. I don’t see how giving an unelected judge the ability to determine our rights, sua sponte, is any better.

 

[Hoover]

Are you saying an "activist judge" striking laws down is bad for citizens? How is increasing freedom bad for citizens or somehow worse than government that grows forever?

You are implying there is a "good" or "ideal" outcome. This is false. There is no ideal government. The best government is an extremely constrained government. The ideal government is NO GOVERNMENT. But since evil people exist, some government is favorable to no government.

This does not change the historical fact that 100% of the time all governments grow to become more evil than regular criminals. Governments kill more people than criminals because they are allowed to grow unchecked.

You want courts to strike down various laws, there are laws you like though, right? NH has constitutional carry, do you want a court to strike that down? You seem to, weirdly, believe courts will strike the laws you like down and leave the ones you like up.

Hamilton said the judiciary was the least dangerous branch because it lacked power. The founders did not want a power judiciary for a very good reason. It’s crazy you want to bestow such power on unelected judges.

 

[Hoover]

Are you saying an "activist judge" striking laws down is bad for citizens? How is increasing freedom bad for citizens or somehow worse than government that grows forever?

You are implying there is a "good" or "ideal" outcome. This is false. There is no ideal government. The best government is an extremely constrained government. The ideal government is NO GOVERNMENT. But since evil people exist, some government is favorable to no government.

This does not change the historical fact that 100% of the time all governments grow to become more evil than regular criminals. Governments kill more people than criminals because they are allowed to grow unchecked.

You see the danger of government. Guess what, judges are government. You seem to think it’s better to remove power from the elected branches of government and transfer it to the unelected branch.

What you want would create an all powerful government nearly unaccountable to the people. That’s insane

 

[Mesatchornug]

Yo7 want courts to strike down various laws, there are laws you like though, right? NH has constitutional carry, do you want a court to strike that down? You seem to, weirdly, believe courts will strike the laws you like down and leave the ones you like up.

To be fair, you only need a law to confer permitless carry if you first have a law limiting possession. VT has had true Constitutional Carry since its founding by never describing limits greater than what the feds define. By extension, a court that repealed all laws related to the carry of weapons would leave only ConCarry in its wake.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

It seems most of the abuse in the judicial branch isnt striking down laws, its upholding them.

 

[xtry51]

You want courts to strike down various laws, there are laws you like though, right? NH has constitutional carry, do you want a court to strike that down? You seem to, weirdly, believe courts will strike the laws you like down and leave the ones you like up.

Hamilton said the judiciary was the least dangerous branch because it lacked power. The founders did not want a power judiciary for a very good reason. It’s crazy you want to bestow such power on unelected judges.

The only reason we have CC carry as a relatively new law is because other laws were stomping on our rights. If no gun laws existed, you don't need a law declaring the right. The constitution would merely apply as written.

You are creating some serious circular logic in your arguments. Removing laws does not reduce freedom. We don't need more laws to give freedom. All we need to do is eliminate those laws that created the infringement in the first place.

 

[xtry51]

It seems most of the abuse in the judicial branch isnt striking down laws, its upholding them.

Please give an example where allowing a law (not a constitutional limitation which the judges would not be allowed to remove) is more beneficial than just having no law at all.

 

[xtry51]

You see the danger of government. Guess what, judges are government. You seem to think it’s better to remove power from the elected branches of government and transfer it to the unelected branch.

What you want would create an all powerful government nearly unaccountable to the people. That’s insane

This argument is faulty on so many levels. My proposal is Judges (Scotus only as a group) are allowed to strike down any law passed without needing to wait for a case if the judge deems a law in violation of the constitution. No where in my proposal are judges allowed to create law or restrict freedom.

 

[Picton]

How do you not see that this...

if the judge deems a law in violation of the constitution.

is a recipe for arbitrary tyranny?

 

[alan226]

This argument is faulty on so many levels. My proposal is Judges (Scotus only as a group) are allowed to strike down any law passed without needing to wait for a case if the judge deems a law in violation of the constitution. No where in my proposal are judges allowed to create law or restrict freedom.

Does that same rational apply if the left controlled SCOTUS 6-3?

 

[Hoover]

How do you not see that this...


is a recipe for arbitrary tyranny?

A uber powerful unelected body, what could go wrong. . The absolute last place you want more power is the judiciary since they have no direct accountability.

And to want SCOTUS to take case directly skipping lower courts show a fundamental ignorance of the courts. SCOTUS, like appellate courts almost always hears appeals of legal issues from the lower courts, they perform a very different function than district courts. They don’t examine the record, they don’t conduct discovery or often hear cases de novo.

If you ask the justices about his proposal, I think their answer would be no with some colorful expletives. The absolutely do not want to be a trial court.

 

[Hoover]

This argument is faulty on so many levels. My proposal is Judges (Scotus only as a group) are allowed to strike down any law passed without needing to wait for a case if the judge deems a law in violation of the constitution. No where in my proposal are judges allowed to create law or restrict freedom.

SCOTUS is an appellate court, they are VERY different than a district court. You don’t understand how these courts operate. The last thing in the world SCOTUS wants to do is take a case de novo and conduct discovery. That is extremely time consuming and would swamp SCOTUS

 

[xtry51]

Does that same rational apply if the left controlled SCOTUS 6-3?

Yes. Please explain how it being left controlled has a bearing? The power is to strike down laws. Less laws = less government power.

 

[xtry51]

SCOTUS is an appellate court, they are VERY different than a district court. You don’t understand how these courts operate. The last thing in the world SCOTUS wants to do is take a case de novo and conduct discovery. That is extremely time consuming and would swamp SCOTUS

Uh. No. No discovery. SCOTUS gets to strike a law on its face with no case. I'm saying there doesn't need to be a case. SCOTUS sees a law passed that violates the constitution, they can strike it down without a plaintiff or case. It's essentially constitutional veto power by judges.

 

[xtry51]

It pretty amazing how people here in a gun forum on a 2A infringement topic thread want to support more laws.

No wonder our countryis nearly dead.

 

[Picton]

It pretty amazing how people here in a gun forum on a 2A infringement topic thread want to support more laws.

No wonder our countryis nearly dead.

Kind of amazing how others want to support unaccountable government fiat, too...

Seems to me we fought a revolution and crafted a constitution because that's a bad idea? Maybe?

 

[dixidawg]

Yes. Please explain how it being left controlled has a bearing? The power is to strike down laws. Less laws = less government power.

They could decline to strike any leftist laws.

 

[xtry51]

They could decline to strike any leftist laws.

That is literally no different than what happens now.

 

[xtry51]

Kind of amazing how others want to support unaccountable government fiat, too...

Seems to me we fought a revolution and crafted a constitution because that's a bad idea? Maybe?

My proposal makes government more accountable. You get two ways to strike a law. Bring a case or SCOTUS can strike before a case is needed. This ensures a wider array of solutions to cuffing gov power and avoiding years of gov abuse waiting for cases.

The court can still decide to wait for a case. But they would not be bound waiting for the retarded unicorn candidates with standing we all have to wait for under the current system.

Our current constitution clearly does not work. Our government has grown out of control. The Founders did well, but there are improvement to be made.

 

[Picton]

My proposal makes government more accountable.

The court IS the government. You seem not to accept that. And you're fine with them being accountable to literally no one.

That boggles my mind.

 

[xtry51]

The court IS the government. You seem not to accept that. And you're fine with them being accountable to literally no one.

That boggles my mind.

SCOTUS is already not accountable. They are specifically lifetime appointed to have the freedom to make decisions bereft of consequence.

The way to pass an unconstitutional law still remains. Pass a constitutional amendment. Bam, problem solved by the will of the people.

 

[T-Unit]

I'm not going to say the SCOTUS we've had the past 15 years doesn't pass some stupid rulings, they absolutely still do (that Wayfair v South Dakota case being one) but a lot of the rulings that haven't gone our way over the last 15 yrs have largely come down to two pieces of shit in Kennedy and Roberts. One of them is gone and along with Ginsberg croaking in 2020 has made a major difference to the court for the rest of this decade.

To stay focused on 2A related cases, recall that Heller was not a guarantee that the court would rule the way it did and it was a minor miracle that Kennedy was part of the majority for that and the reasons why much of the wording in the Heller decision (reasonable restrictions, not unlimited) was to get Kennedy to sign off on it.

Much of what we've had to deal with regarding gun laws dates back to the Progressive movement in the early 1900s because the changes to how senators were elected had an impact on the justices being confirmed. It's possible that without the 17th Amendment the Miller case dealing with the NFA would have been drastically different given certain justices wouldn't have been confirmed.

What SCOTUS has in front of it for the next decade is the undoing of a century of firearm regulations and that the first one they took out in the Sullivan Act, perhaps the oldest gun regulation that was still in effect in the country, in the nation's largest city, was a very symbolic move.

If people want to point blame, stop blaming SCOTUS for not waving a wand and immedietely turning gun laws back to 1932, instead start looking at the people who lived and voted in the US for decades. That's right, for all the knob gobbling of the Greatest Generation, SIlent Gen, and some of the Boomers, they fukked this nation up beyond recognition and while I don't particularly care for Millenials and Zoomers, they are indeed a product of that which came before them.

 

[xtry51]

I agree this is not a SCOTUS issue. The problem starts with those passing laws. We made it far too easy to pass laws.

 

[Bonesinium]

I agree completely that we have too many laws. In fact at least 99% of them are worthless at best, harmful at worst, and I'd wager more fall in the harmful category than the worthless category.

But your position that the reason for this is somehow fixed by a different Constitution and/or more powerful court, doesn't hold water. Government is made up of people. And the problem is people. No Constitution will ever restrain people from abusing power or authority. It doesn't matter what it says. This is proven daily. And courts are made up of people, and people, again, are the problem, not the solution. SCOTUS already can strike down laws as unconstitutional. That's literally their only job. How's it working out?

There is no form of government that is infallible and not subject to the whims and wills of people. All governments will always grow in size and power. All governments will always take away the citizenry's freedoms as time goes on. The only way to get freedoms is to take them back by force and eliminate the current government and start over. Revolution is the only solution and that solution is, of course, only ever temporary.

With the size of our country, both in terms of land area and population, combined with the technology of today, Revolution is more difficult than ever and any new Government will surely fail in much quicker time then the current one. No way it lasts 250+ years.