Scotus lets AWB stand in NY and CT

[zukiphile]

Because I would like those office holders to stay in office. I think on this issue at this time, because of how it can be spun, there is a better way to handle it and still achieve a desirable result.

I grok the sentiment.

The senate doesn't show lots of stamina for these sorts of fights. Announce hearings, and institutional momentum will push Garland to a wider senate vote. If you think the current situation is ugly, wait to see what is heaped on your favorite senators once they've voted against appointment.

 

[armoredman]

I doubt, however, that the current situation is one the framers of the constitution could have imagined or considered desirable.

That quote could reasonably be applied to every action of government for the last 100 years.

 

[speedrrracer]

What cause is advanced by holding hearings on BHO's nominee?

You avoid arming the hypocrites crying from the other side of the aisle with the argument that your side is shutting down the govt, being uncooperative, etc, etc.

We all know both sides do it whenever it's convenient and within their power to do so, yet the fact they do it suggests they believe its merits outweigh its negatives. There's a myth (or not, maybe it's true?) that eventually, such stalling techniques will rebound upon the stallers, and public pressure will force them to bend.

They just want things to get done

Do they? What if the resulting things are things with which they are in vehement political disagreement? Wouldn't they then prefer those things to have remained in stasis rather than manifested in reality?

Perhaps many Americans who have spent what little of their lives they can spare to focus on politics and are on the fence about many of the issues can easily feel, "Just flip a coin", which might roughly translate to "They just want things to get done". However, that leaves the scales un-tipped, and a vocal minority can then influence the majority.

 

[Chaz88]

Perhaps many Americans who have spent what little of their lives they can spare to focus on politics and are on the fence about many of the issues can easily feel, "Just flip a coin", which might roughly translate to "They just want things to get done". However, that leaves the scales un-tipped, and a vocal minority can then influence the majority.

I think we are saying about the same thing in a different way. My concern is how the vocal minority could use this issue to persuade the people that do not care about the minutia.

EDIT: One of my elected officials is currently being raked over the colas at every opportunity for blocking the hearings.

 

[TDL]

Annoying, but ultimately it leaves us no worse off than we were before. We're still fighting this battle in the legislatures on both federal and state levels- that is no different.

Disagree strongly. The political effect is substantial. This will embolden other states that have over 50% Dem legislatures and no AWB to adopt one. I am not sure what proportion of the US lives in AWB areas but it looks like approaching 50%.

Secondarily next to be targeted will be any magazine fed semi auto long gun.

The gun control lobby is fixated on this because they know the public opinion trend has gone against them, with the country being 80% in favor of AWB 25 years ago, and 45% today. But exploit the peaks as public opinion goes negative on semi auto rifles for a short period after an event. The more they can lock them in the better. They never roll them back at state level.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ABCWashPostPoll_BanningAssaultWeapons_1216.png

 

[5whiskey]

PS - discussion elsewhere suggests that it might be better for cases not to reach the SCOTUS to avoid the negative decision. That was the fear in the original Heller case.

It's hard to read the future. It's entirely possible that the makeup of the SCOTUS is as gun friendly right now as it will be for a very long time to come. Sure, it is impossible to know for sure... but it is possible. I do see wisdom in waiting to push a high profile challenge to gun laws, but there is also a possibility that if it's not challenged now then it never will be. I think this is what is leading to the senate refusing to hold hearings to confirm Garland. Many issues besides gun control are also factored in.

What cause is advanced by holding hearings on BHO's nominee?

A fair question... but again it would require us to know the future. If Hillary Clinton is elected, anyone she would appoint will likely lean much further left than Garland does. So if the senate "waits it out..." well that has a chance to backfire. Although I think we're awaiting election results. If Hillary actually does win, we will likely see a very rushed effort to confirm Garland as he will be viewed as more moderate than anyone she would appoint.

Then again, Hillary very well may not win. I think Trump is a gamble and a wild card though. That's what scares me a little bit about him. What would his SCOTUS picks look like? I have no clue. I'm not sure you could find any legal professional that is competent enough to serve on the SCOTUS that would be okay with a straight up Muslim immigration ban. So... given Trumps stance, and logically believing he would appoint someone who will favor his stance, what nominee would Trump come up with?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In the past SCOTUS was OK with the Japanese interment. Given the right circumstances, anything can happen.

A severe crisis and values go down the drain for many.

 

[zukiphile]

I find Garland's label as a "moderate" less than useful. He seems to be in favor of state action in a way many libs find congenial, but then balances that out with a less than vigorous support of rights of criminal defendants, so he is "pro-police" or "pro-law&order", less the defender of those defendants' rights than was Scalia.

I think Trump is a gamble and a wild card though. That's what scares me a little bit about him. What would his SCOTUS picks look like? I have no clue.

I suggest both to my friends who like him for what they think he will do and my friends who oppose him for what they think he will do that neither have adequate basis for anything like an informed guess about his future course. He has published a list of prospective appointees, but it is fair to wonder whether that list is scrapped when he doesn't need it as a bit of political ballast.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I suggest both to my friends who like him for what they think he will do and my friends who oppose him for what they think he will do that neither have adequate basis for anything like an informed guess about his future course. He has published a list of prospective appointees, but it is fair to wonder whether that list is scrapped when he doesn't need it as a bit of political ballast.

Excellent analysis! Trump is a big question mark, but OTOH, Hillary isn't. I'll take a malleable question mark over a rabid anti any day!

 

[rickyrick]

The way people act, you'd think that Trump is gonna be the first president in history to accomplish all of his campaign promises(for or against) When they do accomplish one of the campaign proposals, it's never what was imagined.

I know one candidate is feverishly antigun and the other seems to be progun.

I figured with the not so right leaning SCOTUS, they'd try to get as many gun cases in front of the judges in the interim before the vacancy is filled.

But, since a democratic president is nearly assured, there's probably no need to rush.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, as a casual observer it seems Roberts doesn’t want the Court to be the final arbitrator in a lot if situations. I know he has commented that while he disagrees with certain issues he feels it is the job of the Legislature to fix it and not the Court. I’m not sure how it is supposed to be in a theoretical sense, but it seems in a more practical sense the Court is the final word.

It IS the role of the legislature and not of the courts to "fix" it. That's what the Constitution set out for us -- the legislative branch writes the laws, and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court, ultimately) decides whether or not a particular law is valid under the Constitution. However, before the legislature can (or will) set out to "fix" a law, the courts must rule clearly that the law is NOT constitutionally valid, and explain why so that the legislature can address the flaws the next time around.

Roberts doesn't appear to want the court to do its job.

 

[Footslogger]

It does not matter.
Civil disobedience is wide spread concerning these unconstitutional laws in both respective states.
The state governments know it too.........they just don't like to talk about it.

 

[flyer898]

It takes four votes to get a case before the court. I suspect that neither the pro-2A justices or the anti-2A justices think there are enough votes to get the decision they want, so the issue is not taken up.