Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,164 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 15 June 2020 - 12:04 PM

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.”


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#2 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,654 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 15 June 2020 - 12:35 PM

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."


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#3 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 3,895 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 15 June 2020 - 12:59 PM

Roberts is a RINO, just like the jackass who nominated him.

#4 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,352 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 15 June 2020 - 01:08 PM

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.


Edited by Sweeper13, 15 June 2020 - 01:08 PM.


#5 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,636 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 15 June 2020 - 03:22 PM

Roberts has turned into Kennedy.

 

Is there some hidden rule that says one SCOTUS justice must always be on both sides of the issues?  


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#6 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,864 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 15 June 2020 - 04:10 PM

Either Roberts has been compromised and they have something serious on him or he lied his rear end off through the vetting process!



#7 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 15 June 2020 - 04:53 PM

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.
Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#8 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 3,895 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 15 June 2020 - 05:29 PM

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!!

#9 RyanC

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 19

Posted 15 June 2020 - 06:05 PM

Not so supreme court has punted again on 2nd down again.....why are paying this loser to not do their jobs. Maybe tricky Dick Durbin's letter has them scared.

#10 steveTA84

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,672 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 15 June 2020 - 06:26 PM

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.


Soooooo you’re glad the cases were tossed??? And you’re on a 2A forum?????

#11 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,957 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 15 June 2020 - 06:34 PM

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?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#12 steveTA84

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,672 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 15 June 2020 - 06:38 PM

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

#13 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 18 June 2020 - 12:53 AM

Roberts is a RINO, just like the jackass who nominated him.

Roberts is playing politics.  Playing politics with individual rights should result in impeachment.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#14 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 18 June 2020 - 01:02 AM

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?


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#15 g29er123

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 18

Posted 18 June 2020 - 10:41 AM

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?  



#16 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,636 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 18 June 2020 - 11:14 AM

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.


Edited by BobPistol, 18 June 2020 - 11:14 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#17 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 18 June 2020 - 11:57 AM

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.



#18 springfield shooter

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 18 June 2020 - 12:20 PM

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. 


"I can't spare this man. He fights."  Abraham Lincoln


#19 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,148 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 18 June 2020 - 12:52 PM

Lifetime appointment, but they can certainly be removed by impeachment.  Look up Samuel Chase who was only saved by the Senate, and Abe Fortas who quit before he got impeached.  However, it's not an easy task.



#20 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,654 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 18 June 2020 - 01:24 PM

I can't believe we are talking about impeaching Roberts before RBG


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#21 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,148 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 18 June 2020 - 01:48 PM

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. 



#22 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,500 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 18 June 2020 - 02:24 PM

The only thing with RBG is that she rules based on leftist ideology and NOT law.  I don't respect her for that and don't feel she can do her job impartially because of that.

The justices should rule based on what the written law says (including the US Constitution), not how they "feel".

Sotomayor and Kagan are the same.



#23 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,123 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 18 June 2020 - 03:45 PM

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.....


Life Member --- NRA Endowment Level
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member --- Tennessee Gun Owners
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Oak Ridge Sportsmen's Association

 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.


#24 g29er123

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 18

Posted 18 June 2020 - 04:20 PM

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.  



#25 Silhouette

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 18 June 2020 - 04:59 PM

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.


Edited by Silhouette, 18 June 2020 - 04:59 PM.


#26 g29er123

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 18

Posted 18 June 2020 - 05:30 PM

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^^



#27 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 14,363 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 18 June 2020 - 05:43 PM

 

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?


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#28 Silhouette

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 18 June 2020 - 07:09 PM

Here is a source for procedure at SCOTUS including voting for cert and assignment of opinions:  https://www.uscourts...urces/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."



#29 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,237 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 19 June 2020 - 09:06 AM

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.


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#30 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 21 June 2020 - 12:47 AM

Roberts may have been afraid of SCOTUS paychecks being defunded by those in congress that threatened them over 2nd amendment cases.  He may also have been afraid of what other manipulation of the court that congress might do over the 2nd amendment cases such as altering the length of appointment or other such attacks.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users