Jump to content

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Cert on Second Amendment Cases


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

STATEMENT FROM ALAN GOTTLIEB, SAF

ON SUPREME COURT

The following is a statement from Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to accept a Second Amendment case for review.

 

 

“The Supreme Court’s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

“He owes every gun owner in the United States an explanation about why the high court declined to hear a number of important Second Amendment cases.

 

“Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose, there is no excuse why the court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases, and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

“There is still one more case pending cert before the high court that was filed by the SAF. It is known as Rodriguez v. San Jose, a firearms confiscation case out of the State of California.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spineless.

 

Thomas and Kavanaugh writing this: "This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion," Thomas wrote, in an opinion joined by Kavanaugh. "But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should never be expected that a Supreme Court Justice will support what the supporters of the appointing President wish them to do. That’s not part of the job description for SCOTUS... or any other court.

They are vetted for a strict constructionist legal philosophy. Dem judges are vetted for allegiance to "the cause." Name me ONE Dem-appointed justice who ever turned. It is always a Dem snake liebot conning the likes of Nixon and Bush.

 

Good God, Clinton and Obama nominated far left activists!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should never be expected that a Supreme Court Justice will support what the supporters of the appointing President wish them to do. That’s not part of the job description for SCOTUS... or any other court.

How come the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democrats always do what the Democrats want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It should never be expected that a Supreme Court Justice will support what the supporters of the appointing President wish them to do. That’s not part of the job description for SCOTUS... or any other court.

How come the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democrats always do what the Democrats want?

Because they’re political activists, not judges that fight to uphold the constitution or interpret it as it was written

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STATEMENT FROM ALAN GOTTLIEB, SAF

ON SUPREME COURT

The following is a statement from Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to accept a Second Amendment case for review.

 

 

“The Supreme Court’s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

“He owes every gun owner in the United States an explanation about why the high court declined to hear a number of important Second Amendment cases.

 

“Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose, there is no excuse why the court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases, and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

“There is still one more case pending cert before the high court that was filed by the SAF. It is known as Rodriguez v. San Jose, a firearms confiscation case out of the State of California.”

 

Will SCOTUS risk being accused of racism if it dismiss a gun rights case of this minority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should never be expected that a Supreme Court Justice will support what the supporters of the appointing President wish them to do. That’s not part of the job description for SCOTUS... or any other court.

 

 

So "conservative" judges don't do what do what the Republican president wants. That's good.

So leftist judges 100% do what the Dem president wants. Crickets.

 

Double standard = corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chief Justice doesn't actually control that much in the actual cases handled. If he is in the majority when they vote on who wins after oral argument, he gets to decide who writes the opinion. He probably exercises authority on what justice is assigned to what Circuit Court of Appeals. After that, he has about the same power of any other justice on which cases to grant cert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may sound crazy, but since the President appoints the Chief Justice(Bush Appointed Roberts) and this is voted on in the Senate, would it be crazy for Trump to appoint a new Chief Justice i.e. Thomas or Alito and have them confirmed in the Senate before November?

 

Federal judgeships (including on the Supreme Court) are lifetime appointments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RBG like her or not, has always been true to her stated liberal proclivities. I don't like her, I don't agree with her, and hope to God she is replaced by a conservative ASAP, but I do respect her for remaining true to her convictions.

 

Roberts on the other hand is an unreliable, backstabbing turncoat. Clearly he has ulterior motives to be crossing over on such important issues. He's done it time and time again, and yes, he should be grilled about it. Absolutely. Certainly it's not impeachable, but we just have to consider him as unreliable and continue to work to dilute him AND the liberals with more conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no authority, Constitutional or otherwise, for anyone to to demote a federal judge (including SCOTUS justices.) It would take a demotion of Roberts to create a vacancy (Chief Justice) to fill. If Trump tried that, it would be massively challenged in Congress and in the courts, and SCOTUS would end up ruling on the issue. Guess how that might turn out.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chief Justice doesn't actually control that much in the actual cases handled. If he is in the majority when they vote on who wins after oral argument, he gets to decide who writes the opinion. He probably exercises authority on what justice is assigned to what Circuit Court of Appeals. After that, he has about the same power of any other justice on which cases to grant cert.

It seems like Roberts had a hand in all of the 2A cases being removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

g29er123 is right that Roberts has no special power. It takes four justices to grant cert, but it takes five to render a majority opinion. While I have confidence no justice would ever decide a case before argument, if people like Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito are perhaps unsure that a fifth justice would join them, they may not vote to grant cert. I think people here in our community just felt that Roberts might be more inclined to vote in favor of an enumerated, fundamental right than, say, RBG, Kagan, Breyer, or Sotomayor... Apparently, we were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

g29er123 is right that Roberts has no special power. It takes four justices to grant cert, but it takes five to render a majority opinion. While I have confidence no justice would ever decide a case before argument, if people like Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito are perhaps unsure that a fifth justice would join them, they may not vote to grant cert. I think people here in our community just felt that Roberts might be more inclined to vote in favor of an enumerated, fundamental right than, say, RBG, Kagan, Breyer, or Sotomayor... Apparently, we were wrong.This

This^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Chief Justice doesn't actually control that much in the actual cases handled. If he is in the majority when they vote on who wins after oral argument, he gets to decide who writes the opinion. He probably exercises authority on what justice is assigned to what Circuit Court of Appeals. After that, he has about the same power of any other justice on which cases to grant cert.

It seems like Roberts had a hand in all of the 2A cases being removed.

 

That’s is interesting and disturbing. Do you have any sources for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a source for procedure at SCOTUS including voting for cert and assignment of opinions: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

 

Excerpts relevant to this discussion:

 

Writs of Certiorari: "The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.

 

Conferences: "When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roberts has gone to the dark side. The 2 new judges are back and forth with him also. The left never comes over like these 3 have. The immigration decision today is another one.

 

 

NO kidding. How come some of the "conservative" justices sometimes go vote with the liberals. But the 4 confirmed leftists not once ever come and vote with the conservatives? It's because on the leftists, any non-PC or pro-constitution thought is banished and they are sticklers at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...