Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Edwardteach72, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:14 PM.
As much as they tried to stop the case, it officially is going to SCOTUS. December 2nd...
Cliff notes? What is it about?
I really hope this case goes the way it should. Doesn't this date conflict with the next mass shootings though?
Very, very, very rarely would I "like" a post that says this but credit where due.
Let's hope their advocate doesn't suck balls as much as Mr. King.
I think getting strict scrutiny out of this case is a pipe dream but we need to start playing the long game the way the anti's have. I would love to see this go in our favor and have Thomas wrote the decision - and smack the shit out of the 2nd and other circuits for effectively ignoring Heller and McDonald, even if he does it in non-binding dicta.
Strict scrutiny in itself is unconstitutional. I don’t know why people push for it.
NYSRPA has filed suit against New York City challenging the constitutionality of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York.
Court issues December calendar - SCOTUSblog
Unfortunately this scheduling order doesn't mean anything as the the Justices will decide whether to continue to the case on October 1 at conference. Watch this space.
I dont disagree with you in principle but I disagree with you in practice.
Without varying degrees of scrutiny basically everything (non-violent, at least) would either be illegal, or everything would be legal. Which would be bad either way.
My greatest fear is that turncoat Roberts. He singlehandedly saved Obamacare, and he also killed putting a citizenship question on the census.
I wouldn’t trust that bastard to hold my used toilet paper.
Only 6.5 years after initial filing. Justice is swift.
Seems like an easy win because it’s so obviously an idiotic law. But what am I missing? It is a boring case to me, at least the direct injury to defendent
Hopes and dreams aside how can this help the rest of the country?
Honestly @Blimey I'm not quite sure. The law at issue is so NYC-specific it is hard to see how it goes broad the way Heller did via McDonald.
What I would love to see though is Thomas put something into the decision which further clarifies the Court's displeasure with lower courts essentially handwaving McDonald away.
It was a great shame that the Scalia court did not take up the Lincoln Park case, which I think would have been an opportunity to point out that AR's are, like the handguns in question in Heller, very much "in common use" and therefore subject to the same rules as Heller. Given the makeup of the Court at the time I can understand why they didn't but still, disappointing and frustrating.
Just my $0.83.
Strict Scrutiny is only used when a law passed or is going to be passed is unconstitutional. In order for this unconstitutional law to stand the government has to prove that there is a compelling interest to justify it.
That’s one of three requirements:
- A compelling governmental interest
- The law is narrowly tailored
- It is the least restrictive means of regulation
Right. And it’s only used to justify an unconstitutional law. If you look up examples of it used in applying, they are all for unconstitutional acts.
So shouting fire in a theater or slandering a person with false statements is okay under any circumstances then.
The problem isn’t strict scrutiny but when a lesser standard is actually applied.
No. It isn’t the word fire that should be banned. It’s the disturbance that should be banned. Just the same as carrying a gun isn’t supposed to be banned. But killing someone unjustifiable while carrying that gun is supposed to be.
You're getting expensive.
It’s causing the disturbance that is banned. Not the specific words. “Fire” in a theatre is just a famous example
Strict scrutiny would mean there was no other real way. Like they could ban guns from visitors at a prison but not outside of it. Strict scrutiny as opposed to other forms of scrutiny
That’s what I’m saying.
This is so back-assward it is funny!
How is it funny? It’s used to allow an unconstitutional law or act to stand that isn’t supposed to stand.
No it makes the Government prove it is Constitutional!
Not the Plaintiff prove it is not!
Under strict scrutiny, a law interfering with a fundamental right will generally be upheld only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest. That’s why US citizens of Japanese descent were allowed to be placed in interment camps. That’s why it is used for gun laws. It’s basically a circus to allow unconstitutional acts to stand.
Interment camps really!
And please post the case that Strict Scrutiny has been used in a 2A case!!
Separate names with a comma.