Muleskinner
Ultimate Member
One more step towards turn them all in boys and girls. It's coming. Don't hurt yourself tripping to get to the police station to hand them over
Their “credibility”? With who? The people who oppose the right to arms are concerned only with outcomes and thus credibility is irrelevant to them. The people who support the right to arms want the right to be treated with the same respect as the rest. By doing this (treating the right to arms worse than the right to speech), the Court loses credibility with the only people who might care about that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You need to examine the history of 2A litigation and what the anti-2A courts have done. What do you think the 9th Circuit would do if it were the Supreme Court? That is what will happen with a composition change like what I describe.
Yes of course it will lead to a significant reversal. “Regulation” can always be done in such a way as to eliminate the right. The Court need only uphold that and that’ll be that for the right to arms.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From what I can see, the speed of the SCOTUS is in line with the speed that the Civil Rights were reviewed.
The SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to review and collect all the various arguments for and against the New 2A guidance. Once the lower courts have collected a nice selection of the arguments for them, the SCOTUS will address them. There is a limited number of cases the SCOTUS can address in any one year. They will not try to address them individually. They will look for the best case to draw from and refine the previous rulings.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Right, but that's your opinion. Do you think the Court sees it that way? SCOTUS is obsessed with the appearance of impartiality, however misguided that might be. The fact that neither side will see them as such is irrelevant.
That being said, it's still a massive leap to read into that as evidence that they're going to cave to the antis.
Sure, what history of 2A litigation are you referring to? I assume you think I've been asleep for all of the post-Buren decisions at the circuit courts?