The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up several cases regarding the scope of the Second Amendment. Despite a low hurdle for the right-leaning Supreme Court, the justices turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws established to limit the availability and accessibility of some firearms and when they can be carried in public.[More]Here's the order list including CERTIORARI DENIED for:
If they won't hear these cases, what chance is there to hear one dealing with the core purpose of the Second Amendment?
Might I also suggest judicial foot-dragging in anticipation of November election results and a change in the selection criteria for new justices?
UPDATE:
Alan Gottlieb says “The Supreme Court’s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts."
Some of us have questioned his appointment since Day One.
3 comments:
I fully expected this.
Roberts is distrusted by EVERYONE.
I don't consider the court to be "right leaning." IF anything, it is still liberal.
At BEST, we have four "conservative" justices, though, based on some other decisions, I have questions about that, too.
Your title hints at a relationship between justice and rights that's hard to argue with. The phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" is so demonstrably true that it has been repeated in various forms since the 1600's and has become a staple of our American jurisprudence having been embedded in our various speedy trial rules.
Quoting from:
https://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/2967-you-can-quote-them
"There is a pamphlet titled Another Word to the Wise, Shewing that the Delay of Justice, Is Great Injustice, by John Musgrave, dated 1646. Content not available, but the long-winded title pretty much says it all."
I believe, as you apparently do, that a right delayed is also a right denied. I also believe that the various Justices siting on the SCOTUS bench know this full well. Their behavior since at least Miller shows a pattern with regards to the Second Amendment. They don't like what it says. Period.
Time for a re-read of this I believe.
"The Embarrassing Second Amendment" by Sanford Levinson
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7254&context=ylj
I knew this would be the result. The SCOTUS has no inclination to take any 2A case whatsoever and are perfectly happy letting these states and municipalities continue to violate our Rights. The jury box has officially failed us. Where does this leave us? You know where.
Post a Comment