The SC will decide if domestic abusers get to possess firearms.

[berg80]

‘You’re Running Away From Your Argument’: Liberal Justices Expose Grim Farce In Domestic Violence Gun Case

Tuesday’s arguments married two of the most surreal ramifications of that decision.

The Court’s newly established precedent forced lawyers to plumb the founding era for laws banning domestic abusers from possessing weapons at a time where even the most powerful white women were well over 100 years from suffrage and controlled entirely by their husbands.

And secondly, Zackey Rahimi’s lawyer had to commit to the extremity of his argument, showing how far afield the Court’s radical stance on guns has already traveled. He contended that people like Rahimi — the Texas drug dealer who the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled had his firearms confiscated unconstitutionally after he attacked his ex-girlfriend and then threatened to shoot her if she told anyone — should get to keep deadly weapons.

A couple of the liberal justices lambasted the ludicrousness of the case from both angles.

“I’m a little troubled by having a history and traditions test that also requires some sort of culling of the history so that only certain people’s history counts,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said to Rahimi’s lawyer, Matthew Wright.

She pointed to the reality of the limited founding era laws the Court has ruled litigants must pull from: They were written by and extended their protection only to, as Jackson summarized, “white, Protestant men.” Recognition of the legal rights of enslaved and indigenous people, for a start, is virtually nonexistent in the body of the law that undergirds the Court’s rigid originalism.

Kagan joined with Jackson in cutting through the procedural fog.

“I’ll tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright — I feel like you’re running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable,” Kagan said.
‘You’re Running Away From Your Argument’: Liberal Justices Expose Grim Farce In Domestic Violence Gun Case

82% of Americans want gun restrictions for those convicted of domestic violence, poll finds
82% of Americans want gun restrictions for those convicted of domestic violence, poll finds

Once again Repubs, and likely the Court, finds itself at odds with common sense and the will of the country's majority, while simultaneously disregarding the threat to the lives of victims of domestic violence. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[wamose]

Ask Ketanji if flushing goldfish before moving to a new apt. or house is considered domestic abuse? How about if the fish was Black. MAGA

 

[rightwinger]

I think even this conservative court will not touch this one

 

[rightwinger]

Ask Ketanji if flushing goldfish before moving to a new apt. or house is considered domestic abuse? How about if the fish was Black. MAGA

what a stupid post

 

[pknopp]

I have to admit I have not followed this. If they are ruling on one not afforded due process they will likely rule that is wrong.

The Constitution clearly allows for the removal of rights through due process though.

 

[rightwinger]

I have to admit I have not followed this. If they are ruling on one not afforded due process they will likely rule that is wrong.

The Constitution clearly allows for the removal of rights through due process though.

the Texas drug dealer who the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled had his firearms confiscated unconstitutionally after he attacked his ex-girlfriend and then threatened to shoot her if she told anyone — should get to keep deadly weapons.

 

[DBA]

‘You’re Running Away From Your Argument’: Liberal Justices Expose Grim Farce In Domestic Violence Gun Case

Tuesday’s arguments married two of the most surreal ramifications of that decision.

The Court’s newly established precedent forced lawyers to plumb the founding era for laws banning domestic abusers from possessing weapons at a time where even the most powerful white women were well over 100 years from suffrage and controlled entirely by their husbands.

And secondly, Zackey Rahimi’s lawyer had to commit to the extremity of his argument, showing how far afield the Court’s radical stance on guns has already traveled. He contended that people like Rahimi — the Texas drug dealer who the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled had his firearms confiscated unconstitutionally after he attacked his ex-girlfriend and then threatened to shoot her if she told anyone — should get to keep deadly weapons.

A couple of the liberal justices lambasted the ludicrousness of the case from both angles.

“I’m a little troubled by having a history and traditions test that also requires some sort of culling of the history so that only certain people’s history counts,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said to Rahimi’s lawyer, Matthew Wright.

She pointed to the reality of the limited founding era laws the Court has ruled litigants must pull from: They were written by and extended their protection only to, as Jackson summarized, “white, Protestant men.” Recognition of the legal rights of enslaved and indigenous people, for a start, is virtually nonexistent in the body of the law that undergirds the Court’s rigid originalism.

Kagan joined with Jackson in cutting through the procedural fog.

“I’ll tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright — I feel like you’re running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable,” Kagan said.
‘You’re Running Away From Your Argument’: Liberal Justices Expose Grim Farce In Domestic Violence Gun Case

82% of Americans want gun restrictions for those convicted of domestic violence, poll finds
82% of Americans want gun restrictions for those convicted of domestic violence, poll finds

Once again Repubs, and likely the Court, finds itself at odds with common sense and the will of the country's majority, while simultaneously disregarding the threat to the lives of victims of domestic violence. I hope I'm wrong.

Just goes to show you that liberals, even when they are SC justices, are unable to escape the indoctrination that makes them inject fact into every single issue. All liberal SC justices will be in lockstep, they always are. They rarely think for themselves.

 

[pknopp]

the Texas drug dealer who the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled had his firearms confiscated unconstitutionally after he attacked his ex-girlfriend and then threatened to shoot her if she told anyone — should get to keep deadly weapons.

Again, I do not know the specifics. Did he get his due process in court? If so, it's Constitutional. If not then it isn't.

 

[rightwinger]

Just goes to show you that liberals, even when they are SC justices, are unable to escape the indoctrination that makes them inject fact into every single issue. All liberal SC justices will be in lockstep, they always are. They rarely think for themselves.

Do you think this guy should keep his guns?

the Texas drug dealer who the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled had his firearms confiscated unconstitutionally after he attacked his ex-girlfriend and then threatened to shoot her if she told anyone — should get to keep deadly weapons.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, I do not know the specifics. Did he get his due process in court? If so, it's Constitutional. If not then it isn't.

A Restraining Order is due process

 

[wamose]

what a stupid post

Sometimes it takes a stupid post to point out how stupid justices will revert to stupid reasoning to come to their stupid opinions. Remember, Ketanji doesn't know what a woman is so how can you expect her to know what constitutes domestic violence? She'd probably consider a guy who prevented his fat, diabetic wife from eating ice cream abusive. Ketanji is an ideolog, not a judge. MAGA

 

[DBA]

Do you think this guy should keep his guns?

the Texas drug dealer who the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled had his firearms confiscated unconstitutionally after he attacked his ex-girlfriend and then threatened to shoot her if she told anyone — should get to keep deadly weapons.

According to Brown, I guess I would need to know if he is white or black before I answer that question.

 

[DBA]

Sometimes it takes a stupid post to point out how stupid justices will revert to stupid reasoning to come to their stupid opinions. Remember, Ketanji doesn't know what a woman is so how can you expect her to know what constitutes domestic violence? She'd probably consider a guy who prevented his fat, diabetic wife from eating ice cream abusive. Ketanji is an ideolog, not a judge. MAGA

She is a race baiter, like virtually all Democrats. Everything is viewed through a racial lense.

 

[Mac-7]

I have to admit I have not followed this. If they are ruling on one not afforded due process they will likely rule that is wrong.

The Constitution clearly allows for the removal of rights through due process though.

Dems are not going to wait for due process

They - and maybe you - want cops to grab guns first and worry about due process later

 

[berg80]

I think even this conservative court will not touch this one

Meanwhile, the conservative justices spent the arguments pondering who, exactly, counts as a “dangerous” or “irresponsible” person, seemingly to avoid handing down a decision that prohibits too many people from having guns.

Even for this court, with its extremely expansive view of the Second Amendment, the fallout, at least from an optics perspective, of upholding the 5th Circuit in this case would be brutal. Rahimi is a uniquely terrible posterboy for gun rights, and a whopping 82 percent of Americans support gun restrictions at least for those convicted of domestic violence.

The conservatives Tuesday seemed more interested in finagling how to narrow a potential decision reversing the 5th Circuit than they stood in staunch opposition to the government’s arguments.

“Responsibility is a very broad concept,” Chief Justice John Roberts fretted, picking at the government’s characterization of Rahimi. “I mean, not taking your recycling to the curb on Thursdays if it’s a serious problem, it’s irresponsible, by setting a bad example, by yelling at a basketball game in a particular way.”

Stellar insight by John as always.

 

[berg80]

Dems are not going to wait for due process

They - and maybe you - want cops to grab guns first and worry about due process later

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds as though you're more concerned about dubious claims of gun rights than the lives of people at risk from violence, and death, by domestic abusers.

 

[berg80]

Sometimes it takes a stupid post to point out how stupid justices will revert to stupid reasoning to come to their stupid opinions.

Don't be too harsh to the conservatives. It's possible, if not likely, they'll make the right decision.

 

[Mac-7]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds as though you're more concerned about dubious claims of gun rights than the lives of people at risk from violence, and death, by domestic abusers.

I am also concerned about dubious claims of domestic abuse

If the threat is real submit it to a judge and jury before you go off half cocked

 

[rightwinger]

It is a no brainer

If you are convicted or have a domestic abuse restraining order, you should not have access to guns

 

[DBA]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds as though you're more concerned about dubious claims of gun rights than the lives of people at risk from violence, and death, by domestic abusers.

Should convicted felons be allowed to have guns? Democrats were pushing for felons to have their right to vote restored because it benefits them in elections. They are very quick to remove guns rights of virtually anyone for virtually any thing because it reinforces their agenda.