berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 14,953
- 12,381
- 2,320
‘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.
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.