SCOTUS denies kolbe v hogan cert

[Mike1Juliet]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112717zor_f204.pdf

There goes the assault weapon ban challenge. It's really strange because all of their reasoning is completely defunct to DC v heller and yet they called the ar15 "unusual" and not in common use because the evidence that it was was "scant evidence"

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Well, I guess that SCOTUS isn't going to help gun owners rights anytime soon... Probably going to have to wait for every last one of them ASIDE from Justice's Thomas and Gorsuch to either retire or die off, - and even then with near worthless McConnell as Senate Majority Leader (Now there's a joke!) fighting Trump's agenda, any and all suits heading to SCOTUS appear to be a complete fucking waste of time and money.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Fuck that circus side show of a court. What a joke!!

 

[GuyMontag]

disgraceful, but completely expected given the current makeup of the court

 

[Marine Cpl]

Anyone who thinks they'll take any case which can knock down a state's ban is severely optimistic. It isn't going to happen anytime soon if ever. We can't even get reciprocity passed and we have both houses. When it comes to guns, both parties are cut from the same cloth. We've had more gun grabbing from Republicans than the Democrats federally.

 

[Burzum]

The ONLY option at the federal level is for gun groups to unite and push for the SAGA Act, yes I received a lot of flack in a prior thread on this issue, and no it is not a great option, but that is where we are.

If the issue involved Planned Parenthood and abortion the Republicans would be tripping over their shoelaces to do something, but gun rights mean nothing to most of them except tricking gun owners to vote for the GOP during election time.

 

[Bob]

disgraceful, but completely expected given the current makeup of the court

This. We need at least two more staunch conservatives on the Court, to replace liberal justices.
It's been rumored that Kennedy will retire soon. He is 81. A conservative replacement wouldn't change much. At 84, RBG could kick at any time now. A conservative replacement for her would be a net win for us. The next oldest Justice after RBG and Kennedy is Stephen Breyer. At 79. He's only five years younger than RBG and has been on the bench just one year less. Replacing him with a conservative would be a net win for us as well.

I don't wish death on anyone. But for the survival of our Republic, I hope they get replaced within the next three years. I'm not confident Trump will have another term in office, especially if both houses of Congress can't start working together.

Beyond that, there's one option left. And I pray to all that is holy that we don't have to resort to it.

 

[Deplorable Me]

The fix is in...............

 

[GuyMontag]

I'm not confident Trump will have another term in office, especially if both houses of Congress can't start working together.

Bob, not only will he get another term, he'll win bigger than last time.

Ask yourself if ANYONE you know who voted for Trump, would change their vote for a Dem if the election were tomorrow.

Dems are going over-correct and run a leftist wingnut type like the Bern or Pocahontas, count on it.

Look no further than who's running the DNC, the children are now running the asylum.

 

[Bob]

But remember - it's not just about POTUS. Without Senate approval, Trump's SCOTUS appointments won't fly.

I fear losing the Senate with Trump as POTUS more than I fear losing just Trump.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Bob, not only will he get another term, he'll win bigger than last time.

Ask yourself if ANYONE you know who voted for Trump, would change their vote for a Dem if the election were tomorrow.

Think of how many libs didn't vote for Hitlery because of how they imagined Bernie got screwed. Think of how many libs just stayed home because they thought she would win. They're even more against Trump now than before. I really don't think Trump will be winning a 2nd term.

 

[C3D]

SCOTUS has made it clear it will not take a new case until there is a reshuffle of the justices, one way or another.,

 

[Dr. Evil]

I didn't realize the Supreme court was made up strictly of woman. NO BALLS!

 

[Mosinitis]

What did I tell you all. The make up of the court doesn't make any difference. If needed justice(s) will migrate to the left to pretend the court is divided. It's all rigged, where both political parties are trying to keep you on a leash without giving you anything in return. "If we only get one more conservative justice?" or "If so-and-so kicks the bucket". This is all bullshit. Supreme Court is a part of the same corrupt establishment, no matter what the make up is.

 

[Mosinitis]

It's not about them not having balls, it's about you being played for fools.

 

[Defilade]

The quicker people realize the Deep State has "Key Positions" under their thumb the more you understand this.

 

[Dr. Evil]

It's not about them not having balls, it's about you being played for fools.

Wow man. And I was feeling pretty good about myself today.I stand by my original statement. I may be a fool but they have no balls.

 

[Mosinitis]

Wow man. And I was feeling pretty good about myself today.I stand by my original statement. I may be a fool but they have no balls.

They wouldn't get where they are without balls and they made plenty of controversial decisions to benefit the elites and politicians. They just don't give a shit about you and me. "No balls" is the excuse they would be happy with, better then admitting the reality, it's a corrupt institution.

 

[Chuck D]

This is how half assed this ban is. You can't buy an AR15 in Maryland unless it is of "heavy barrel" variety. The rifle has to say "heavy barrel" on the barrel itself.

If you want an AR in .308, go buy one off the shelf. Easy peasy.

You can't buy standard capacity magazines in Maryland but hop on over to Pennsylvania , buy what you want, and brine them home no questions asked.

The whole thing is a joke but not as much of a joke as NYS law...that's for sure.

Now that there appears to be virtually no hope in righting the ship....

 

[Mosinitis]

I bet Gorsuch was kicking and screaming, right? What a joke our government has become.

 

[Bob]

Gorsuch and Thomas made it clear in their dissent in July that they are the only two who have the appetite to take on another Second Amendment issue. That means we need two more in order to grant cert, and one more beyond that to rule one way or another.

Let's hope that RBG and Breyer leave the bench before the Massachusetts case works its way back up.

 

[Mosinitis]

Gorsuch and Thomas made it clear in their dissent in July that they are the only two who have the appetite to take on another Second Amendment issue. That means we need two more in order to grant cert, and one more beyond that to rule one way or another.

Let's hope that RBG and Breyer leave the bench before the Massachusetts case works its way back up.

How many times do we need to fall into the same trap? If only they rearranged chairs, Titanic would stay afloat.

 

[GuyMontag]

SCOTUS has made it clear it will not take a new case until there is a reshuffle of the justices, one way or another.,

C3D, we've ALREADY had a "reshuffle."

 

[Dr. Evil]

They wouldn't get where they are without balls and they made plenty of controversial decisions to benefit the elites and politicians. They just don't give a shit about you and me. "No balls" is the excuse they would be happy with, better then admitting the reality, it's a corrupt institution.

I stand corrected. They have no balls where it counts.

 

[Darth]

Cool, can we decide to pay them only when they do work then?

 

[Mike1Juliet]

So I was reading through reddit and found this bit. All hope might not be lost. From the way it sounds, the SCOTUS didn't deny the cert because they think the 4th circuit decision was correct, they denied it saying we already have rulings on this and the 4th is so bad they should go back and take a look at it again lest they embarrass themselves again. Furthermore, it seems Maryland will have to go to court again and prove that their ban somehow doesn't violate US v Miller 1934 by arguing that AR-15's aren't military weapons and aren't in useful for defense which is exactly the opposite of what their campaign of the ban was about.

 

[C3D]

C3D, we've ALREADY had a "reshuffle."

Not one that has changed the ideological balance of the court. When 2 justices go from liberal to conservative, the world will change in many ways. Some even for the better.

 

[GuyMontag]

Not one that has changed the ideological balance of the court. When 2 justices go from liberal to conservative, the world will change in many ways. Some even for the better.

Remind me again where in the Constitution, Federalist Papers or the canon of judicial ethics such procedure is enumerated?

This concocted standard is as legitimate as a Chappaquiddick Neckbrace.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Hahahhahaa SAGA

 

[livingston]

“Put simply we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” wrote Circuit Judge Robert B. King in the opinion.
This is why we needed Trump in Washington .... to balance out all the liberal judges put in place by the swamp creatures ... for decades .

Obama's judges leave liberal imprint on U.S. law
Obama's judges leave liberal imprint on U.S. law

Lawrence Hurley
8 Min Read

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, the federal appeals court based in Virginia was known as one of the most conservative benches in the country.
Two Obama terms later, Democratic appointees hold a 10-5 majority on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of which issued a groundbreaking ruling this April backing transgender rights.

FACTBOX: Cases where Obama judges left a mark

The shift to the left on the court, which hears cases from Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina, highlights a widely overlooked aspect of Obama’s legacy.

His appointments of dozens of judges to the country’s influential federal appeals courts have tilted the judiciary in a liberal direction that will influence rulings for years to come and be further entrenched if Democrat Hillary Clinton wins this November’s presidential election.
A Reuters review of rulings by the courts over the last two years shows Obama’s appointees to the appeals courts have influenced major legal battles likely to ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

Obama-appointed judges have voted in favor of broad civil rights protections, major Obama administration regulations and gun regulations and against Republican-backed voting rules.

Infographic ID: '2blUhmV'

When seeking to appoint judges, the White House has said it is looking for highly credentialed lawyers reflecting the diversity of U.S. society. Conservative critics say he has picked judges who are willing to circumvent the law in order to reach preferred outcomes.

“There’s no question President Obama’s nominees have absolutely been part of his effort to transform the country and move it dramatically to the left,” said Carrie Severino, a conservative legal activist.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement that Obama’s appointees “all share impeccable qualifications, unquestioned integrity, and a steadfast commitment to equal justice under the law.”

The appeals courts are the first stop for any case appealed from the lower U.S. district courts and often have the last word. The next and final destination is the Supreme Court, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year. The appeals courts handle 35,000 a year according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Of the 13 appeals courts, nine now have a majority of Democratic appointees, compared with one when Obama took office, according to research carried out by Russell Wheeler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

In addition to appointing two Supreme Court justices and dozens of district court judges, Obama appointments now make up 55 of the current 168 appeals court judges, according to the judiciary. Obama’s current total of 323 district and appeals court appointments, most of them district court judges, is similar to the tallies achieved by other recent two-term presidents.

The regional appeals courts are currently more powerful than ever because of the vacancy on the Supreme Court caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, which has left the court divided equally between liberals and conservatives. If the ideologically divided court splits 4-4, the appeals court ruling is left intact. Such an outcome occurred four times in the Supreme Court term that recently ended.

Scalia’s seat is unlikely to be filled until next year due to political opposition from Republicans in the Senate, which has the job of confirming nominees.

COURTS TRANSFORMED
One of the most dramatic transformations has been on the 4th Circuit.

In July 2007, 18 months before Obama became president, Republican appointees held a 7-5 majority. Through a mix of seven Obama appointments and retirements, Democratic appointees now hold sway.

In April, a three-judge panel featuring two Obama appointees ruled in favor of a transgender student seeking to use a boys’ restroom. The two Obama appointees were in the majority, with a Republican appointee dissenting.

Three months later, a three-judge panel featuring two Obama appointees and one judge appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton struck down North Carolina’s strict voter identification law on a 3-0 vote, saying the state legislature had enacted it with discriminatory intent.

It is one of several recent court rulings pushing back on Republican-led efforts to impose new voting regulations, which Democrats say is intended to deter minorities from voting.

Caroline Fredrickson, president of liberal legal group the American Constitution Society, said Republican-appointed judges are generally less likely to rule in favor of broad interpretations of civil rights. The transgender case would “very likely” have come out differently with a more conservative panel of judges, she said.

The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. is another where the balance of power has been flipped. Often known in legal circles as the second highest court in the land because it hears important cases concerning the federal government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was dominated by conservatives 6-3 when Obama took office.

Obama was able to force through four appointments after a major showdown in the Senate. The court now has a 7-4 split in favor of Democratic appointees.

In June, an Obama appointee, Judge Sri Srinivasan, cast the deciding vote as a three-judge panel upheld the Federal Communication Commission’s so-called “net neutrality” regulation. Srinivasan joined a Clinton appointee in the majority. A judge appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan dissented. The regulation is widely opposed by the telecommunications industry and backed by digital rights advocates.

Obama’s appointees do sometimes vote in favor of conservative outcomes. Paul Watford, a judge on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has on several occasions reached a different conclusion to his more liberal colleagues. In one recent decision from Aug. 15, he dissented along with conservative judges when the court ruled that a death row inmate should be able to file a new appeal.

When announcing three of his nominees to the appeals court in Washington at a White House press conference in June 2013, Obama rejected any notion that they were political pawns, emphasizing their strong credentials.

“These are no slouches. These are no hacks,” he said.