Legal/scotus thread

Garmel said:
Ask the democrats who used alternate electors every time they lost. If you had an understanding of law you would understand why it's vague.

Since 1869 the SCOUS has said the 14th amendment section isn't self-executing.

One uses plain language the other one isn't.
Click to expand...


You are confusing two separate issues. Alternate electors are legal when done in case of the result of a winner being overturned by the courts. All the alternate electors that specified that they were contingent on prevailing in lawsuits that change the outcome have not been charged. Those that claimed to be the legal electors with no qualification have been charged. Maybe you can point out to me which Democrats sent in a elector certification without the qualification. What you are probably referring to are faithless electors who are not alternate electors, they were the electors chosen. In most cases they are legally bound to vote for whoever won the vote in that state. It never really been an issue because its usually a symbolic vote for someone with not even running and its never had the backing of the losing candidate. I will remind you that there were more Hillary electors who issued votes for someone else than there were Trump electors who were faithless. The other issue is the VP only having the right to count the legal electoral votes. Only the courts have the power to change who the legal elector votes are.
 
He's still serving 16 years in Cali. So probably won't matter in the grand scheme of things. He'll likely die in prison. At least hopefully.
 
GML_iA_WIAAXX0b


https://minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
 
Once again the SCOTUS reaffirms you need a unanimous jury to convict.

[tw]1804157422917030093[/tw]

[tw]1804159968108552545[/tw]
 
Last edited:
Today's ruling in Rahimi is bad news for Hunter's chances on appeal.

From the opinion: "Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others."
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Yeah, I don't agree with SCOTUS on that. I hate the modern interpretations of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I think it is common sense to restrict someone's 2nd amendment rights if they are addicted to serious drugs or have mental health issues or have threated someone else. Rahimi had already fired his gun during an argument with this girlfriend before it was taken away from him.

I would actually like to go back to 2nd amendment jurisprudence form a hundred years ago. It is the modern version that I have problems with.
 
More from Roberts' opinion:

The dissent reaches a contrary conclusion, primarily on
the ground that the historical analogues for Section
922(g)(8) are not sufficiently similar to place that provision
in our historical tradition. The dissent does, however,
acknowledge that Section 922(g)(8) is within that tradition
when it comes to the “why” of the appropriate inquiry. The
objection is to the “how.” See post, at 18 (opinion of
THOMAS, J.). For the reasons we have set forth, however,
we conclude that Section 922(g)(8) satisfies that part of the
inquiry as well. See supra, at 7, 13–15. As we said in
Bruen, a “historical twin” is not required. 597 U. S., at 30.
For its part, the Fifth Circuit made two errors. First, like
the dissent, it read Bruen to require a “historical twin” ra
ther than a “historical analogue.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted).
Second, it did not correctly apply our precedents governing
facial challenges. 61 F. 4th, at 453. As we have said in
other contexts, “[w]hen legislation and the Constitution
brush up against each other, [a court’s] task is to seek har
mony, not to manufacture conflict.” United States v. Han
sen, 599 U. S. 762, 781 (2023). Rather than consider the
circumstances in which Section 922(g)(8) was most likely to
be constitutional, the panel instead focused on hypothetical
scenarios where Section 922(g)(8) might raise constitu
tional concerns.
 
What exactly are they classifying as domestic-violence restraining orders? Is that any restraining order or does it require an arrest/charges to be filed first?

If it's the latter, I would support the decision.
 
Last edited:
I liked Barrett's concurring opinion. Money quote:

Here, though, the Court settles on just the right level of
generality: “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws
have included provisions preventing individuals who
threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”

If Rahimi has already fired his gun in an argument with his girlfriend I think his case falls squarely within the framework of "individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."
 
Garmel said:
[tw]1805261080920281115[/tw]
Click to expand...

I’m not going to get into the larger discussion here about gender expression, but just legally I find this to be a fascinating case. It would seem to me that the laws would have to be written to not allow for any use of certain medications/procedures for either gender, or it would be unconstitutional to prohibit it from being used in the medical treatment of someone with gender dysphoria, and I’m not sure how that’s fundamentally different from allowing states to individually decide on a wide range of medical treatments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top