SCOTUS Watch--Chevron Deference Doctrine overturned; Administrative State takes a HUGE hit.
- Thread starter Chop
- Start date
On the 2nd Amendment front........
Supreme Court split over bump-stock ban - SCOTUSblog
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with Cargill that the federal law defining “machinegun” does not apply to bump stocks because semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not shoot multiple bullets “automatically” or “by a single function of the trigger,” as the law requires. But in any event, the court of appeals held, the rule of lenity – a doctrine that instructs courts to apply ambiguous criminal laws in the way that is most favorable to defendants – also weighs in favor of excluding bump stocks from the definition of machine gun.
At Wednesday’s oral argument, the justices spent a substantial amount of time delving into the highly technical mechanics of firearms. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, pressed Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, representing the Biden administration, on how a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock operates differently from a machine gun.
Fletcher emphasized to fire a machinegun such as an M16, an automatic rifle commonly used by the U.S. military, a shooter would press the trigger back and hold it. To fire a rifle equipped with a bump stock, he explained, the shooter would push the rifle forward, which both “initiates and continues the firing.” That is a “single function of the trigger,” Fletcher contended, because the shooter only takes one action – pushing the rifle forward.
Justice Elena Kagan intervened, suggesting that the shooter doesn’t actively “make sure that the hand is moving back and forth” but instead “just makes sure that he is pushing forward.”
Mitchell conceded that Kagan was “probably right” but stressed that even if the shooter is simply applying “constant pressure with the same amount of force,” he is still acting manually, rather than automatically, as the statute requires."
Supreme Court split over bump-stock ban - SCOTUSblog
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with Cargill that the federal law defining “machinegun” does not apply to bump stocks because semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not shoot multiple bullets “automatically” or “by a single function of the trigger,” as the law requires. But in any event, the court of appeals held, the rule of lenity – a doctrine that instructs courts to apply ambiguous criminal laws in the way that is most favorable to defendants – also weighs in favor of excluding bump stocks from the definition of machine gun.
At Wednesday’s oral argument, the justices spent a substantial amount of time delving into the highly technical mechanics of firearms. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, pressed Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, representing the Biden administration, on how a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock operates differently from a machine gun.
Fletcher emphasized to fire a machinegun such as an M16, an automatic rifle commonly used by the U.S. military, a shooter would press the trigger back and hold it. To fire a rifle equipped with a bump stock, he explained, the shooter would push the rifle forward, which both “initiates and continues the firing.” That is a “single function of the trigger,” Fletcher contended, because the shooter only takes one action – pushing the rifle forward.
Justice Elena Kagan intervened, suggesting that the shooter doesn’t actively “make sure that the hand is moving back and forth” but instead “just makes sure that he is pushing forward.”
Mitchell conceded that Kagan was “probably right” but stressed that even if the shooter is simply applying “constant pressure with the same amount of force,” he is still acting manually, rather than automatically, as the statute requires."
Unanimous Decision - Trump stays on the ballot in Colorado.
This is a big one, if it went the other way, we'd be a short step away from the old Soviet Union--Communist Pary: "You can vote for whomever you want on the ballot, but we decide who gets to be on the ballot and it's always our chosen guy."
Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in Colorado ballot disqualification dispute
Supreme Court rules Trump can stay on Colorado ballot in historic 14th Amendment case
This is a big one, if it went the other way, we'd be a short step away from the old Soviet Union--Communist Pary: "You can vote for whomever you want on the ballot, but we decide who gets to be on the ballot and it's always our chosen guy."
Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in Colorado ballot disqualification dispute
Supreme Court rules Trump can stay on Colorado ballot in historic 14th Amendment case
Last edited:
“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the unsigned Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3," the decision read. "We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under theConstitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."
"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3," the decision read. "We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under theConstitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."
The justices further said the idea that individual states can decide how the section is used with respect to federal offices is "simply implausible" and could result in an unworkable "patchwork" where a candidate could be ineligible in one state but not another.
"Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos -- arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration," the decision read.
"Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos -- arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration," the decision read.
That is ********. They moved quickly due to Super Tuesday. That is not the same as the national security documents (plus different underlying law). Apparently Dems eat this up because they are stupid.
"The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary."
Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off the ballot
"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary."
Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off the ballot
So basically, no STATE can keep Trump off the ballot based on the 14th Am Insurrection argument. Only Congress can enforce that. (and it's obviously not going to).
The push to remove Trump from the ballot in various States based on the 14th Amendment "insurrection" language is effectively dead.
The push to remove Trump from the ballot in various States based on the 14th Amendment "insurrection" language is effectively dead.
Along with their action to allow millions of illegals into our country in an attempt to change the ellectorate.
Sounds like an insurrection. In all seriousness, when the SCOTUS goes 9-0, you gotta shut up on the losing side.
It's not voter suppression. It can't possibly be so. After all, leftists proposed it, and we all know they would never suppress anybody's right to vote, especially for those on the opposition.
It's hilarious its all the liberal rage to call republicans fascists when they are literally doing fascist things like trying to prevent the opposition from even running in the election.
It is voter suppression. However, there's a very strong self-righteousness element of left wing politics that is based on stopping Trump - not his policy agenda but him personally. Why? Because he's dangerous - a fascist who's a "threat to democracy."
Well, if someone's that dangerous, you can show your righteousness by stopping him, and it's pretty much impossible to go too far. In fact, the nuttier and more outlandish your tactics are, the more righteous you look. So though it's voter suppression, it's in service to a righteous cause, so they won't call it that.
I'm convinced libs get bonus points from fellow libs based on how outlandish their plans are against Republicans.
They absolutely do, and they motivate Republican primary voters to rally to him. (And remember, they ultimately want him to be the nominee, because he makes it easiest for them to downplay or deny their own craziness.) There's no downside for them.
Why bother with removing Trump from the ballet if they ultimately want him as the nominee? Reverse psychology?
Because this sort of **** rallies the base to Trump. It's what hurt the Desantis effort more than anything else after the '22 election. He was competitive early on. Then the Trump indictments came, and that was end for him.
Keep in mind that even if the effort had been successful, it only would have taken him off the ballots in a few fairly fairly blue states. He still would have been the nominee.
Supreme Court to consider Trump immunity claim in further delay of election interference trial
The legal question the court will decide is "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office," the order said.
Even if Trump loses, the trial could not take place until well into election season, raising questions about whether it will take place at all before Election Day in November. If Trump were to win his appeal before the court, the charges would be dismissed.
After the Supreme Court announcement, Trump repeated on Truth Social his argument that without immunity "a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America."
"Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office," he added.
The legal question the court will decide is "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office," the order said.
Even if Trump loses, the trial could not take place until well into election season, raising questions about whether it will take place at all before Election Day in November. If Trump were to win his appeal before the court, the charges would be dismissed.
After the Supreme Court announcement, Trump repeated on Truth Social his argument that without immunity "a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America."
"Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office," he added.
How the Supreme Court stepping into the Trump immunity fray could affect a Jan. 6 trial
When the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would decide whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in the federal government's election subversion case, many court experts considered it a major win for his team -- because it means a trial could be substantially delayed again or even not happen at all.
The timing of a decision is critical. For example: What if it doesn't allow a trial to start until just before the November election, in the heat of the 2024 campaign? What happens if Trump wins the presidency before any verdict is reached?
When the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would decide whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in the federal government's election subversion case, many court experts considered it a major win for his team -- because it means a trial could be substantially delayed again or even not happen at all.
The timing of a decision is critical. For example: What if it doesn't allow a trial to start until just before the November election, in the heat of the 2024 campaign? What happens if Trump wins the presidency before any verdict is reached?
Recent Threads
-
2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 11K
- West Mall
-
Obama staged the Charlottesville clash?
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 15
- West Mall
