springfield shooter

Pretty sure you can add Jon Tester (D-MT) to that list. In 2020, Trump won MT by over 16 pts.

The conservatives on the Court didn't bend when the pro-abortion thugs started threatening them in their homes....and in Coney Barrett's case, doxxing her children. I don't think they are going to bend now. When Senator Durbin tried to get CJ Roberts to appear (supposedly) concerning SCOTUS ethics, the Chief Justice sent him a letter basically saying the Court handles it's own ethics issues. Said letter being signed by all nine members of the Court. IOW, "Stay in your own lane senator. We are a co-equal branch of the government."

My two cents: If the conservative justices didn't back off on the abortion ruling, they won't on the 2A.

Thanks.

Is the stay issue by a three judge panel? Or does it take just one judge?

"This is an extraordinary move and one that displays that the State believes it is above the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? This state believes that it's above the Constitution of the United States.

Perhaps Judge McGlynn will write the state a nice, thorough denial that it can show to the 7th Circuit.

The "Current composition of the court" can be found here. In addition, the Supreme Court justice assigned to the 7th Circuit is Amy Coney Barrett.

"McGlynn asks if law abiding citizenry should be able to equip with comparable guns criminals use?" That probably left the proverbial mark.

The judge in the above case is an Obama appointee.

So much for fidelity to their oaths.

While you wait, you may want to follow my late father's sage advice, and not hold your breath.

An in-person status hearing (in front of an apparently agitated judge) in the ND April 3. An afternoon set aside for the April 12 hearing in the SD. April could be a very significant month.

Thanks for the insight Todd.

Are issues of constitutional interpretation even open to a jury?

AR15s are not "unusual" in the Southern District of IL. I'm just sayin'. Ps: I'll admit if I'm wrong, but here's doubting they get a jury on the issue of constitutionality.

Yeah, I was wondering what place a jury would have in determining constitutional questions. But, I'm not a lawyer either. Here's hoping one chimes in.

Down here? They may as well howl at the moon.

But they are sure it's constitutional. 🙄😎

Do the people that wrote for the defendants have any evidence that the technology they used to produce their response (and avail themselves of their First Amendment rights) was available in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted? I mean, that's their criteria....right?

Huh. I thought that wasn't a thing anymore. Do they not read the SCOTUS rulings....Or is "interest balancing" all they've got? PS: when someone opens with current events (tragic as they may be), you can figure they haven't got the law on their side. And they know it.

From what little I've read about him, I don't think the Hon. Roger T. Benitez will be impressed.

So if the state Supreme Court won't take up the matter of bogus three readings procedures, there must be a way to take that to federal court as well. Otherwise, there is no rule of law for the state's citizens to petition for a "redress of grievances".

Admitting I'm no legal beagle....if the "fundamental right" is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution (and considering the Constitution's Supremacy Clause), I don't see how. Well, "how" they can, and then make it stick.

Anyone surprised?