Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Hoover]

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.

You have ZERO understanding of the legal system. No plaintiff, no defendant, no discovery, just 9 unelected, unaccountable justices with veto power.

It’s embarrassing.

 

[Hoover]

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?

He wants no case, no plaintiff, no defendant, no discovery. He literally wants SCOTUS justices to look at a law and rule based on their own views.

That’s not a court system, it’s like some Iranian religious council. Embarrassing

 

[Dadstoys]

How do you not see that this...


is a recipe for arbitrary tyranny?

I don't see how if said law is in direct violation of the constitution .
Say some redneck town passes a law that whites only allowed in stores.
Shouldn't that be in front of the court the next day ?
Or warrents no longer needed and the cops can kick in any door they feel like at random and search?

 

[Hoover]

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?

I agree on this

 

[Picton]

I don't see how if said law is in direct violation of the constitution .

Well, not necessarily.

Like it or not, A LOT of the Constitution is not black-and-white. A lot of it is vague, in legal terms: obvious to laymen like you and me, but ambiguous in the context of laws, where the precise meanings of different words matter a lot.

So one man's "direct violation of the constitution" is another man's "minor procedural point of order." And do you not agree that both those men should have some mechanism that gives them both a chance to argue their points of view? That's the bottom line, and the reason why we have courts: to give disagreeing people equal rights before the law. And so we have discovery. And testimony. And juries. And then an appellate process to try to make sure we've gotten it right. That's all called "due process."

You can come up with examples and scenarios that are obvious (like the one you pose here), and they'll strengthen your argument. But thousands of real-world cases each year come before SCOTUS, cases with very real ambiguities of law and precedent. @xtry51 would take everyone in all those real-world cases and deprive them of due process rights that have been evolving since 1215.

Yeah. Nope.

 

[Dadstoys]

Well, not necessarily.

Like it or not, A LOT of the Constitution is not black-and-white. A lot of it is vague, in legal terms: obvious to laymen like you and me, but ambiguous in the context of laws, where the precise meanings of different words matter a lot.

So one man's "direct violation of the constitution" is another man's "minor procedural point of order." And do you not agree that both those men should have some mechanism that gives them both a chance to argue their points of view? That's the bottom line, and the reason why we have courts: to give disagreeing people equal rights before the law. And so we have discovery. And testimony. And juries. And then an appellate process to try to make sure we've gotten it right. That's all called "due process."

You can come up with examples and scenarios that are obvious (like the one you pose here), and they'll strengthen your argument. But thousands of real-world cases each year come before SCOTUS, cases with very real ambiguities of law and precedent. @xtry51 would take everyone in all those real-world cases and deprive them of due process rights that have been evolving since 1215.

Yeah. Nope.

And a fair amount are not ambiguous .
They need to be delt with swiftly.
Say Maura goes off the rails and orders the National Guard to start kicking doors , taking guns and killing anyone who resists .
We good with waiting a few years to get it through the system and up on to the supreme court ?

 

[Hoover]

And a fair amount are not ambiguous .
They need to be delt with swiftly.
Say Maura goes off the rails and orders the National Guard to start kicking doors , taking guns and killing anyone who resists .
We good with waiting a few years to get it through the system and up on to the supreme court ?

You can get preliminary injunctions or TROs very quickly. The actual cases may take months or years depending on the issues, how far up the courts it goes, etc.

If Maury passed a law saying all minority pregnancies must be aborted, obviously it’s clear that’s very unconstitutional and the court fight would be expedited and short. The questions are not that simple and that’s why the cases take a while. You probably think all gun control is unconstitutional, obviously most liberals think it’s very constitutional.

Also legal questions are very very rare black or white or a single issue. The NY bruen response law has parts which will be upheld as constitutional. A ban on guns in courts or polling places will be allowed but most of the other parts will be found unconstitutional. The NY law wasn’t a few sentences, it’s a large bill with may parts.

Here’s the transcript on a single hearing on CA handgun roster. These are complex cases and decisions on these impact non 2A cases too.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5827/attachments/original/1677179143/Renna_v_Bonta_Hearing_Transcript.pdf?1677179143

 

[Picton]

And a fair amount are not ambiguous .
They need to be delt with swiftly.
Say Maura goes off the rails and orders the National Guard to start kicking doors , taking guns and killing anyone who resists .
We good with waiting a few years to get it through the system and up on to the supreme court ?

There's already a fix for that, as @Hoover points out.

I get the frustration. But the "cure" @xtry51 proposes is as bad as the disease.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Say Maura goes off the rails and orders the National Guard to start kicking doors , taking guns and killing anyone who resists .
We good with waiting a few years to get it through the system and up on to the supreme court ?

Shakespeare addressed such scenarios.

GLENDOWER

I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR

Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

General Mark Kalin is a certified bad ass. Not only would he refuse such an order, so would the vast majority of the guard.

 

[dixidawg]

You can get preliminary injunctions or TROs very quickly. The actual cases may take months or years depending on the issues, how far up the courts it goes, etc.

Case in point was the question of hanging chads. They can drop everything else and act quickly when they deem it necessary.

 

[Coyote33]

Case in point was the question of hanging chads. They can drop everything else and act quickly when they deem it necessary.

Highlighted the problem area.

 

[Picton]

Highlighted the problem area.

They didn't have a choice in Bush v Gore. The Constitution lays out dates by which things have to happen during elections, and SCOTUS is as bound by those dates as the rest of us are.

So "they" didn't deem it necessary to act in that case, either.

 

[HARRYM]

The SCOTUS violated PA and NC state law regarding the counting of late ballots received after the deadline. The states have authority over their elections and allowing exceptions, IN THE MIDDLE OF A BALLOT COUNT, is NOT within the authority of the SCOTUS.

I have no faith in any court system in this country anymore and that includes the SCOTUS. All of them have become political tools. The SCOTUS was doomed to this after the Oldsmobile Killer Borked Robert Bork.

 

[Hoover]

Highlighted the problem area.

All election cases will be expedited because of the time constraints @Picton mentions. Trumps court challenges were all expedited.

The Illinois AWB got slapped with several TROs immediately, the NJ and NY laws were slapped with TROs quickly, the local AWBs in several suburban cities near Denver were slapped with TROs immediately.

The mag limit law in California has been under an injunction since 2017 or so.

 

[HARRYM]

They didn't have a choice in Bush v Gore. The Constitution lays out dates by which things have to happen during elections, and SCOTUS is as bound by those dates as the rest of us are.

So "they" didn't deem it necessary to act in that case, either.

Which they ignored in 2020, you know.....because of Covid.......

 

[Coyote33]

All election cases will be expedited

But not the election itself??????????

 

[Hoover]

But not the election itself??????????

I think everyone should count votes like Florida. States make their own rules, that’s the system we have. If you believe takes weeks to count votes is a new phenomenon, you never paid attention to elections over the years. Some states have taken weeks to count votes for decades, it not a new issue.

 

[Picton]

Which they ignored in 2020, you know.....because of Covid.......

I’m not talking about 2020. Those were entirely different cases, from an entirely different state, with entirely different constitutional issues in play.

They’re not the same.

 

[JoseyWales]

Which they ignored in 2020, you know.....because of Covid.......

IIRC, John Roberts said, before election count was finished, you "have no standing" because the election was not finished yet. Then, after the election count was completed, he said "you have no standing" because the election count was over and done.

 

[HARRYM]

IIRC, John Roberts said, before election count was finished, you "have no standing" because the election was not finished yet. Then, after the election count was completed, he said "you have no standing" because the election count was over and done.

I wish people would remember that.

 

[HARRYM]

I’m not talking about 2020. Those were entirely different cases, from an entirely different state, with entirely different constitutional issues in play.

They’re not the same.

Constitutional issues are determined by whatever Judge is reviewing the case.

 

[JFR2]

There are cases in Massachusetts district court against the handgun roster, those courts are moving slower than CA.

Granata v. Healy is the MA roster case. Next court date is April 4th. This is an appeal to the case which was decided pre-Bruen. I have a feeling the CA and MA handgun rosters will both die soon enough.

-JR

 

[xtry51]

Well, not necessarily.

Like it or not, A LOT of the Constitution is not black-and-white. A lot of it is vague, in legal terms: obvious to laymen like you and me, but ambiguous in the context of laws, where the precise meanings of different words matter a lot.

So one man's "direct violation of the constitution" is another man's "minor procedural point of order." And do you not agree that both those men should have some mechanism that gives them both a chance to argue their points of view? That's the bottom line, and the reason why we have courts: to give disagreeing people equal rights before the law. And so we have discovery. And testimony. And juries. And then an appellate process to try to make sure we've gotten it right. That's all called "due process."

You can come up with examples and scenarios that are obvious (like the one you pose here), and they'll strengthen your argument. But thousands of real-world cases each year come before SCOTUS, cases with very real ambiguities of law and precedent. @xtry51 would take everyone in all those real-world cases and deprive them of due process rights that have been evolving since 1215.

Yeah. Nope.

I clearly said they could hear cases OR strike a law without a case. You didn't read what I wrote. If there is a case filed they have to hear the case as they do now. If they want to strike a law down without a case, they can simply issue what is basically a constitutional veto. Law ceases to exist immediately.

 

[Hoover]

IIRC, John Roberts said, before election count was finished, you "have no standing" because the election was not finished yet. Then, after the election count was completed, he said "you have no standing" because the election count was over and done.

Judges trump appointee dismissed his cases. The legal cases they presented were almost all trash. Most the claims about fraud etc they made publicly,t hey never made in court. Trumps lawyers were TERRIBLE. They were a sleep all summer and fall while dem lawyers were taking cases to court.

 

[Hoover]

Granata v. Healy is the MA roster case. Next court date is April 4th. This is an appeal to the case which was decided pre-Bruen. I have a feeling the CA and MA handgun rosters will both die soon enough.

-JR

The district judge in CA did not seem to buy the CA argument. The largest police organization in the state just submitted a brief opposing the handgun roster.

 

[42!]

I clearly said they could hear cases OR strike a law without a case. You didn't read what I wrote. If there is a case filed they have to hear the case as they do now. If they want to strike a law down without a case, they can simply issue what is basically a constitutional veto. Law ceases to exist immediately.

will you feel the same way when the pendulum swings liberal in the SCOTUS and they just come out as say abortion is a right and legal in all states, and 2a only applies to the National Guard (the militia). And that's the law.

As much as I want unjust laws struck down, I also realize we need a system that protects what I see as correct when others do not agree.

 

[dixidawg]

Highlighted the problem area.

Who should deem it necessary?

 

[T-Unit]

All election cases will be expedited because of the time constraints @Picton mentions. Trumps court challenges were all expedited.

The Illinois AWB got slapped with several TROs immediately, the NJ and NY laws were slapped with TROs quickly, the local AWBs in several suburban cities near Denver were slapped with TROs immediately.

The mag limit law in California has been under an injunction since 2017 or so.

At least California got mere possession of grandfathered mags delayed by the district and 9th Circuit panel, RI skipped grandfathering and went straight to every mag over 10 rds is illegal and the rotten, stinking mook of a district judge rubber stamped it.

There should be an unwritten rule among district judges that any gun regulation should immediately be hit with a TRO because now what people had to do was either dispose of mags or alter them in a way that will reduce their reliability if the laws are ever overturned.

 

[T-Unit]

Judges trump appointee dismissed his cases. The legal cases they presented were almost all trash. Most the claims about fraud etc they made publicly,t hey never made in court. Trumps lawyers were TERRIBLE. They were a sleep all summer and fall while dem lawyers were taking cases to court.

In the case of Pennsylvania there was nothing any lawyers could do, the PA Supreme Court had 2 donks on it and they basically said that the method of how to change the state constitution (that is in the constitution) wasn't good and decided they had the power to change election laws, which allowed the fraud by mail to go on, which tipped the state to Biden.

And that's not going to change in 2024 whether it's Trump or Pence or Jeb Bush or your precious Ron Desantis; PA is election fraud central and will be blue from now until after civil war.

 

[Dadstoys]

IIRC, John Roberts said, before election count was finished, you "have no standing" because the election was not finished yet. Then, after the election count was completed, he said "you have no standing" because the election count was over and done.

The same guy who boned us with Obamacare.