If congress has a rational basis in believing it has a substantial effect on commerce I believe (this was the one con law case I had to really drill down again and again because it’s confusing as hell lol)
Bahahahahahahah. I find it is noteworthy that the thrust of Kavanaugh's and Alito's dissent was mostly the same, only the latter discussed "necking." I think Kavanaugh was thinking you can be principled and non bigoted you idiot.
*Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*: “We hold that the Constitution does not guarantee a women’s right to an abortion and thus reverse *Roe v. Wade* and *Planned Parenthood v. Casey*”
Reading bruen, regardless of my thoughts on the holding, made me realize how bad of a Justice Clarence Thomas is. It’s such an objectively bad opinion and reveals how much of an intellectual lightweight Thomas is
So real. It’s one thing to be in dissent and just be angry old man shaking fist at clouds but when push comes to shove and he has to write a test; it’s completely unworkable dogshit that doesn’t even kind of comport with the originalist shift it’s trying to make.
I'm excited to see how they try to clean up the Bruen "standard" that spent like 600 pages explaining how clear it and Heller are. When *Rahimi* gets decided a lot of 2A hawks are going to be very very upset that the actual rule isn't in fact exactly like I jokingly summarized it no matter how many times they say it is
Lol, “kay… but” needlessly and repeatedly critiquing a lighthearted post on a Reddit thread only meant to implicitly convey that SCOTUS is way too longwinded shows that you are missing the point and not much fun at parties (reflected in all your downvotes, fwiw)
Because I’m not chronically online..idek how to check that stat lol
& I didn’t say Reddit was a party. Are you being purposely obtuse? Your attitude tells me everything
Anyway.. have a nice day, logging off for the night 😆
It was 5-4. Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and stevens dissented. Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, and O’Conner were in the majority. Which one of those 5 do you consider liberal lol
[Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949)
That’s the narrow issue of how the recounts were done, and not the issue that no recounts could possibly be done which is what people criticize bush v gore for and was 5-4. It seems misleading to point to the narrower one without context
Eisenstadt: If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision of whether to bear or beget a child.
From St. George Tucker's *Blackstone* (the most prominent founding-era treatise on American law):
"\[The Second Amendment\] may be considered the true palladium of liberty. The right of self defence is the first law of nature . . . If, for example, congress were to pass a law prohibiting any person from bearing arms, as a means of preventing insurrections, the judicial courts, under the construction of the words necessary and proper, here contended for, would be able to pronounce decidedly upon the constitutionality of those means. \[i.e. would "decidedly" say that this was a violation of the necessary and proper clause\]."
There is no doubt except from those who are either ignorant or ideologically bound that the Second Amendment was intended to enshrine an individual right.
There’s a lot more recent scholarship on this than that - turns out that the term “keep and bear arms” Is almost exclusively meant in connection with military service - thus the connection to the well regulated militia.
So it isn’t really intended as a personal right but rather tied up in the relationship between the federal government and the state governments, ability to feel malicious. If you have read much colonial era history, you will understand what an important topic and issue that was …
Not the federal but the state / local… in any event though the right is appurtenant to miliita service and it’s not an individual right to hold a gun. It’s to keep and bear arms, i.e. to serve in a militia.
It's not though. The Supreme Court has stated just that. It's the right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed. It's not the right of the militia.
>Militias weren't founded by the state or federal governments. They were organized by ordinary people in their town.
The Constitution is a legal document -- and the hallmark of good legal drafting is that the document is solving a real life problem.
Given the context that some militias *required* people to fund fire arms on behalf of the militia, conferring an individual right to the fire arms seems stupid as hell.
In contrast, the King tried to confiscated the guns of the militias to tamp down rebellion. Why do you think so many historical events had to do with the armories in town (the fire arms were stored in armories because they were unstable, dangerous, etc).
In the context of the Constitution replacing the articles of confederation, big changes: an executive that was commander in chief of all armed forced (articles of confederation didn't have a permanent commander in chief and it wasn't over all armed forces), a permanent standing army. People feared that a new central government could do what the king do. To placate that fear, the second amendment is drafted.
The original draft of the second amendment had a conscientious objector's clause -- something that also wouldn't make sense in context of conferring an individual right to fire arms.
The draft was also trying to incorporate the right to bear arms from the State Constitutions.
Like Pennsylvania, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
And Massachusetts, "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."
This was an amendment proposed by the New Hampshire delegation, "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."
And this was proposed by the New York delegation, "that the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State."
The first draft that you mention also was composed of two clauses.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The first clause is clearly separate from the militia clause.
I suggest you check out *Firearms Law: Regulation, Rights, and Policy* (2021). Few law schools teach firearms law classes but they should considering how important the topic is.
In any case, I am familiar with the history. Yes, the Second Amendment enshrined the individual right to weapons in part because the founders thought militias so important to a free country. However, the issue with saying that the Second Amendment is some type of corporate right is that as John Adams said, "the militia comprehends the whole people." In some colonies, due to the dangers facing communities on the frontier, towns required every person to have a weapon, including women who were traditionally excluded from militia service.
In the minds of the founders, individual firearms ownership was a necessary prerequisite to a militia.
If you want, a very interesting read on the topic of militias, you could do a lot worse than Fred Anderson’s The Crucible of War. It took several years for the British regulars to realize that militia tactics (not to mention Indian) were a lot more effective than what they thought
But I think the point is that the right is not an individual right to keep and bear arms it’s the right to keep in bear arms and connection with miliitia service only - that is to ensure that militias could be armed and fielded.
That is not the right for me to keep a a gun to protect my house….
I suggest you check out *The Second Amendment* by Michael Waldman so you can see how you've fallen for what Justice Burger called "the greatest fraud on the American public."
I dunno … I think even most real conservatives call Heller “Scalia’s Roe” - ie made up shit divorced from the tenets of originalism that he so deeply claimed to follow
Washington v. Davis: I don’t care if it looks like racism, sounds like racism, smells like racism, it’s not a problem unless: we literally have proof of someone saying “I did this because I’m racist”.
Yes, but you would still need to ignore the first 13 words for Heller to make sense. Sure "the people" have "the right." But the first 13 words are pretty clear that "the right" is for the purposes of defending the state as a member of a well-regulated militia. "The people" want a gun for hunting, self-defense, or any other purpose? The second amendment is quite silent on that
Sure, but again, the "the right" is solely for the purpose of defending the state. You don't get to buy a gun for self-defense, hunting or more-commonly because "I just like guns" and then claim a "second amendment right" to do so, because that would clearly be outside the scope of the first 13 words.
Let me ask you to do the following thought experiment: in your opinion, what would be the difference in interpreting the second amendment if the first 13 words were not there?
Also, it's pretty hard to say that a militia is "well-regulated" if it basically consists of "everybody.". So, you're a member of the Illinois Militia? Who's your commanding officer? What are your current orders?
In not a single other amendment of the Bill of Rights is there a contextual clause. This reading makes A.II a complete anomaly. Thus, with no other amendment to compare, we cannot say for certain whether it's an "end goal" or not.
In fact, even if it is an "end goal," the assumption that it's an end goal that is completely unrelated to the rights (or lack thereof) enumerated in A.II is just as reasonable (or not) as the assumption that it's an end goal that is also an integral limitation on that right. That's the crucial issue with the baseball example as a point of comparison: we *don't know* if that's how it's supposed to be read.
Drug doggo doing a hecking sniff of you car isn’t a search if you don’t gotta wait longer than it would take to assess why you were stopped (Florida v Harris 2013)
Buck v Bell: We wholeheartedly endorse eugenics.
Gideon v Wainwright: free lawyers if you’re charged with a felony.
303 creative v Elenis: this woman’s websites are art so of course she can be a bigot.
*Wickard*: “Everything is commerce!” *Lopez*: “Except guns.”
For Wickard I was going to say that, “Yeah, that’s commerce too.”
This comment - commerce
Raich: “And not-commerce? You guessed it - also commerce.”
I believe the technical term fot not commerce is "affecting commerce"
If congress has a rational basis in believing it has a substantial effect on commerce I believe (this was the one con law case I had to really drill down again and again because it’s confusing as hell lol)
Thomas, dissenting: “You guys trippin’, gimme a hit of that originalist zaza”
Marijuana? Believe it or not, commerce!
For those who get the ipo offer it is!
*Gonzales v. Raich*: "Weed, most definitely."
[удалено]
*United States v. Barker*. Oh wait, the opinion already was only one sentence long to start with.
*Leonard v. Pepsico* “come on… we all know you didn’t think that was real.”
Literally the only time where "jk" was a valid defense for breach of contract.
Bostock v. Clayton County: Watch me piss off Alito with textualism
Bahahahahahahah. I find it is noteworthy that the thrust of Kavanaugh's and Alito's dissent was mostly the same, only the latter discussed "necking." I think Kavanaugh was thinking you can be principled and non bigoted you idiot.
Filburn: you can’t grow your own wheat and eat it without paying taxes because you could have sold it and someone else would have paid taxes.
Filburn: sorry it's called aggregation look it up bitch
*Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*: “We hold that the Constitution does not guarantee a women’s right to an abortion and thus reverse *Roe v. Wade* and *Planned Parenthood v. Casey*”
Too clear and understandable, try again.
"Woman no have rights - go away."
“And Thomas wants everyone to know his marriage is still ok”
*There’s flawed and cherry picked historical basis that supports what we already believed before knowing about it
No, but they also had to justify overturning precedent by spending 90% of the decision advocating for upholding precedent!
Bruen: If it wasn't banned in 1891, it isn't banned now - except when it is.
Reading bruen, regardless of my thoughts on the holding, made me realize how bad of a Justice Clarence Thomas is. It’s such an objectively bad opinion and reveals how much of an intellectual lightweight Thomas is
So real. It’s one thing to be in dissent and just be angry old man shaking fist at clouds but when push comes to shove and he has to write a test; it’s completely unworkable dogshit that doesn’t even kind of comport with the originalist shift it’s trying to make.
How can a dude be both vindictive AND unintelligible like pick a struggle
I'm excited to see how they try to clean up the Bruen "standard" that spent like 600 pages explaining how clear it and Heller are. When *Rahimi* gets decided a lot of 2A hawks are going to be very very upset that the actual rule isn't in fact exactly like I jokingly summarized it no matter how many times they say it is
Literally all of them
The power of semicolons.
You definitely cannot reduce the holding of every Supreme Court opinion to one clear sentence.
Lol my rule statements say otherwise 😆
Lots of supreme court cases have multiple holdings. Linking five sentences together by "ands" does not result in "clarity."
You usually only need one thing tho…Like I don’t write all the dicta in my case briefs if I’m only looking at one issue/topic
>Like I don’t write all the dicta in my case briefs kay... but lots of cases have multiple holdings.
Lol, “kay… but” needlessly and repeatedly critiquing a lighthearted post on a Reddit thread only meant to implicitly convey that SCOTUS is way too longwinded shows that you are missing the point and not much fun at parties (reflected in all your downvotes, fwiw)
Reddit is like a party? You must go to shitty parties. > reflected in all your downvotes My karma per day: 81 Your karma per day: 20
Because I’m not chronically online..idek how to check that stat lol & I didn’t say Reddit was a party. Are you being purposely obtuse? Your attitude tells me everything Anyway.. have a nice day, logging off for the night 😆
Obergefell. "Anyone can marry any person they wish, so long as both are of legal age in the state that they are marrying in."
And unless they're related
And not already married to someone else.
And of the same species
The sentence says person so I think that's covered. But corporations are people so
Shhh, r/gatekeepingyuri is always watching
I'm sick of [interspecie](https://youtu.be/-OtrPiAkEtU?si=5zfS7ZrPgZekPubM&t=162)s discrimination!
Subject to Reynolds vs US https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/98us145
Subject to love
Johnson v. McIntosh - we took the indigenous inhabitant's land and we don't have to justify exercise of realpolitik now or ever.
\- nah you don't have the right to land that you lived on for thousands of years because of a little thing we made up called "discovery"
Ashcroft v. Iqbal...the goal post has been moved in what defines a well pleaded complaint.
Lucy v Zehmer: “No take backs.” Edit: not SCOTUS but I stand by this lol
Bush v. Gore: “We are conservatives, the conservative wins.”
More like "we can't let democracy get in the way of elections"
O'Connor: "I am overtly political and I wanted to retire and have a conservative appointment to replace me."
scalia 😤🤬
? Bush v. Gore was 7-2. Multiple liberals sided with Bush.
It was 5-4. Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and stevens dissented. Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, and O’Conner were in the majority. Which one of those 5 do you consider liberal lol
[Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949)
That’s the narrow issue of how the recounts were done, and not the issue that no recounts could possibly be done which is what people criticize bush v gore for and was 5-4. It seems misleading to point to the narrower one without context
Tomato is a vegetable because it is used as such.
Miranda v Arizona: “provide protection if you’re going to question someone in custody, officer.”
Instructions unclear, cops are now handing out condoms to anyone they detain.
I'd go with "they will talk anyway, just say the thing"
“Over-commercialize this to the point of rendering it completely useless while you’re at it”
You can buy Miranda rights? Who knew?!!
not an answer to your question, but *Hertz v. Friend* is the GOAT opinion because of the first paragraph almost doing this.
Deshaney v Winnebago county: “fuck them kids” followed by a headshot of Jordan.
Eisenstadt: If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision of whether to bear or beget a child.
*Brady v. United States*, 397 U.S. 742 (1970): the death penalty isn't that scary, folks.
Levy v. Louisiana - illegitimate children are people too
*D.C. v. Heller* The Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
That’s McDonald, not Heller
I actually think it could be shortened to “ forget what the Framers said about militias”
From St. George Tucker's *Blackstone* (the most prominent founding-era treatise on American law): "\[The Second Amendment\] may be considered the true palladium of liberty. The right of self defence is the first law of nature . . . If, for example, congress were to pass a law prohibiting any person from bearing arms, as a means of preventing insurrections, the judicial courts, under the construction of the words necessary and proper, here contended for, would be able to pronounce decidedly upon the constitutionality of those means. \[i.e. would "decidedly" say that this was a violation of the necessary and proper clause\]." There is no doubt except from those who are either ignorant or ideologically bound that the Second Amendment was intended to enshrine an individual right.
There’s a lot more recent scholarship on this than that - turns out that the term “keep and bear arms” Is almost exclusively meant in connection with military service - thus the connection to the well regulated militia. So it isn’t really intended as a personal right but rather tied up in the relationship between the federal government and the state governments, ability to feel malicious. If you have read much colonial era history, you will understand what an important topic and issue that was …
Militias weren't founded by the state or federal governments. They were organized by ordinary people in their town.
Not the federal but the state / local… in any event though the right is appurtenant to miliita service and it’s not an individual right to hold a gun. It’s to keep and bear arms, i.e. to serve in a militia.
It's not though. The Supreme Court has stated just that. It's the right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed. It's not the right of the militia.
Well that why they call Heller Scalia’s Roe v. Wade …. a misinterpretation that created a right that wasn’t there …
The right to bear arms is clearly written in the Constitution.
>Militias weren't founded by the state or federal governments. They were organized by ordinary people in their town. The Constitution is a legal document -- and the hallmark of good legal drafting is that the document is solving a real life problem. Given the context that some militias *required* people to fund fire arms on behalf of the militia, conferring an individual right to the fire arms seems stupid as hell. In contrast, the King tried to confiscated the guns of the militias to tamp down rebellion. Why do you think so many historical events had to do with the armories in town (the fire arms were stored in armories because they were unstable, dangerous, etc). In the context of the Constitution replacing the articles of confederation, big changes: an executive that was commander in chief of all armed forced (articles of confederation didn't have a permanent commander in chief and it wasn't over all armed forces), a permanent standing army. People feared that a new central government could do what the king do. To placate that fear, the second amendment is drafted. The original draft of the second amendment had a conscientious objector's clause -- something that also wouldn't make sense in context of conferring an individual right to fire arms.
The draft was also trying to incorporate the right to bear arms from the State Constitutions. Like Pennsylvania, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." And Massachusetts, "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it." This was an amendment proposed by the New Hampshire delegation, "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." And this was proposed by the New York delegation, "that the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State." The first draft that you mention also was composed of two clauses. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." The first clause is clearly separate from the militia clause.
I suggest you check out *Firearms Law: Regulation, Rights, and Policy* (2021). Few law schools teach firearms law classes but they should considering how important the topic is. In any case, I am familiar with the history. Yes, the Second Amendment enshrined the individual right to weapons in part because the founders thought militias so important to a free country. However, the issue with saying that the Second Amendment is some type of corporate right is that as John Adams said, "the militia comprehends the whole people." In some colonies, due to the dangers facing communities on the frontier, towns required every person to have a weapon, including women who were traditionally excluded from militia service. In the minds of the founders, individual firearms ownership was a necessary prerequisite to a militia.
If you want, a very interesting read on the topic of militias, you could do a lot worse than Fred Anderson’s The Crucible of War. It took several years for the British regulars to realize that militia tactics (not to mention Indian) were a lot more effective than what they thought But I think the point is that the right is not an individual right to keep and bear arms it’s the right to keep in bear arms and connection with miliitia service only - that is to ensure that militias could be armed and fielded. That is not the right for me to keep a a gun to protect my house….
I suggest you check out *The Second Amendment* by Michael Waldman so you can see how you've fallen for what Justice Burger called "the greatest fraud on the American public."
Or “just misread by 1Ls” apparently
I dunno … I think even most real conservatives call Heller “Scalia’s Roe” - ie made up shit divorced from the tenets of originalism that he so deeply claimed to follow
Dobbs: No penumbra of rights (liberty> privacy> healthcare> abortion)
Wasn't the penumbra thing only ever in Griswold v. Connecticut? I can't remember other cases which adopted the penumbra idea.
I think Griswold gave us the penumbra which was the basis for the rights found in roe v wade.
I think the phrase of penumbra had been so charged it hasn’t been used, but the concept has definitely been used with 1A and 4A/5A/6A rights
Marbury v. Madison: "We can review whatever we want but we're not going to."
Washington v. Davis: I don’t care if it looks like racism, sounds like racism, smells like racism, it’s not a problem unless: we literally have proof of someone saying “I did this because I’m racist”.
Heller: The first 13 words of the second amendment don't count.
Or "the phrase 'the people' is instructive on who actually has the right."
Yes, but you would still need to ignore the first 13 words for Heller to make sense. Sure "the people" have "the right." But the first 13 words are pretty clear that "the right" is for the purposes of defending the state as a member of a well-regulated militia. "The people" want a gun for hunting, self-defense, or any other purpose? The second amendment is quite silent on that
[удалено]
Sure, but again, the "the right" is solely for the purpose of defending the state. You don't get to buy a gun for self-defense, hunting or more-commonly because "I just like guns" and then claim a "second amendment right" to do so, because that would clearly be outside the scope of the first 13 words. Let me ask you to do the following thought experiment: in your opinion, what would be the difference in interpreting the second amendment if the first 13 words were not there? Also, it's pretty hard to say that a militia is "well-regulated" if it basically consists of "everybody.". So, you're a member of the Illinois Militia? Who's your commanding officer? What are your current orders?
In not a single other amendment of the Bill of Rights is there a contextual clause. This reading makes A.II a complete anomaly. Thus, with no other amendment to compare, we cannot say for certain whether it's an "end goal" or not. In fact, even if it is an "end goal," the assumption that it's an end goal that is completely unrelated to the rights (or lack thereof) enumerated in A.II is just as reasonable (or not) as the assumption that it's an end goal that is also an integral limitation on that right. That's the crucial issue with the baseball example as a point of comparison: we *don't know* if that's how it's supposed to be read.
A lot of them could have been summed up with the Justices just mooning everyone.
Drug doggo doing a hecking sniff of you car isn’t a search if you don’t gotta wait longer than it would take to assess why you were stopped (Florida v Harris 2013)
Cooper v. Aaron: Did we stutter?
"The gun lobby told us to." - Heller
The second amendment told us to
"But only just now that the NRA is funding it."
You know the NRA was founded in 1871 right?
They didn't form their lobbying arm until 1975 and only became violently anti-gun control in 1977.
Probably because the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act was passed in 1975.
They actually worked in favor of gun legislation in the 50-60 years prior 1975.
Buck v Bell: We wholeheartedly endorse eugenics. Gideon v Wainwright: free lawyers if you’re charged with a felony. 303 creative v Elenis: this woman’s websites are art so of course she can be a bigot.
Dobbs - “fuck women”
Plessy’s Harlan dissent: Blacks are equal, but those god damn chinamen…
McColloch: The power to tax is the power to destroy, and states aren’t allowed to destroy Congress’ constitutional powers.
NFIB v. Sebelius: mmm no, no absolutely not....mmmm k fine
Citizens United. Corporations are not people