Scotus rejects NRA on assault weapon ban

[evince]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...ons-ban/ar-BBFOxeZ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


The U.S. Supreme Court, which had avoided major gun cases for seven years, on Monday declined to hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to Maryland's 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre.

 

[archives]

If Scalia was still on the Court I'd wager that they would have taken the cases, but Roberts doesn't want his Court's legacy to be remembered for the Hueller and Citizen United cases, so he's avoiding the heavy political cases

 

[Micawber]

Not sure what to make of demurring on taking up a case without a leak. Could just mean the docket is loaded and this isn't the "right" case.

Whatever the reason, it makes good policy sense to leave sensible legislation untouched.

 

[katzgar]

probably didnt see a need to decide something they already decided

 

[evince]

If Scalia was still on the Court I'd wager that they would have taken the cases, but Roberts doesn't want his Court's legacy to be remembered for the Hueller and Citizen United cases, so he's avoiding the heavy political cases

he waiting for the repubilcans to cheat more right wingers onto the court with him.


its why they refused to allow Obama to pick the last one


UNCONSTITUTIONALLY

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

So the court declined to hear the case and that's how it should be. Courts have no authority to repeal or rewrite laws. You want a state law changed, go to the legislature.

I support guns but this was the right thing to do.

 

[evince]

this idiot doesnt understand the American system

 

[archives]

So the court declined to hear the case and that's how it should be. Courts have no authority to repeal or rewrite laws. You want a state law changed, go to the legislature.

I support guns but this was the right thing to do.

The Court's role is to interpret the law made by the legislature, is such law is unconstitutional they can negate the law, it is thier role, they are not legislating, but rather removing a current law.

If their decisions are poor, as I think they have been with Hueller and Citizen United, the Legislature can't pass another law to address the situation or a later Court can overturn the ruling. System works

 

[Teflon Don]

Roberts was a huge mistake as a Justice

 

[evince]

lets hope he dissapoints you repeatedly

 

[Micawber]

probably didnt see a need to decide something they already decided

Could be. If that is the case it was a waste of RWWJ NRA gun dues to challenge it.
If a prior Scotus case on all 4s had already decided the exact issue.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

big shock, once again the nations highest court avoids doing it's job making them irrelevant.

 

[Micawber]

The Court's role is to interpret the law made by the legislature, is such law is unconstitutional they can negate the law, it is thier role, they are not legislating, but rather removing a current law.

If their decisions are poor, as I think they have been with Hueller and Citizen United, the Legislature can't pass another law to address the situation or a later Court can overturn the ruling. System works

This is a very interesting constitutional issue that goes back to the founding. Take Citizen's United. Haven't studied but I hope I am right this is the case that afforded legal entities like Corporation with constitutional rights previous
only provided to natural persons. If so, then it is questionable whether or not the legislature can write around that decision . If indeed there is a holding asseting that right by the branch that "exponds and interprets" and is "the supreme law
of the land" and whose province is to say "what the law is" a law drafted to abrogate that right would be unconsitutional. I'd certainly make that argument if my premises stated here are sound. I'm just applying McCullock and Marbury principles.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

The Court's role is to interpret the law made by the legislature, is such law is unconstitutional they can negate the law, it is thier role, they are not legislating, but rather removing a current law.

If their decisions are poor, as I think they have been with Hueller and Citizen United, the Legislature can't pass another law to address the situation or a later Court can overturn the ruling. System works

Actually, the legislature can make laws addressing the situation.

 

[evince]

This is a very interesting constitutional issue that goes back to the founding. Take Citizen's United. Haven't studied but I hope I am right this is the case that afforded legal entities like Corporation with constitutional rights previous
only provided to natural persons. If so, then it is questionable whether or not the legislature can write around that decision . If indeed there is a holding asseting that right by the branch that "exponds and interprets" and is "the supreme law
of the land" and whose province is to say "what the law is" a law drafted to abrogate that right would be unconsitutional. I'd certainly make that argument if my premises stated here are sound. I'm just applying McCullock and Marbury principles.

worse decision ever


if corporations should be allowed to give money to candidates then shouldnt they have to be owned by AMERICANS??????



how many foreign people own large chunks of major corporations?

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

worse decision ever


if corporations should be allowed to give money to candidates then shouldnt they have to be owned by AMERICANS??????



how many foreign people own large chunks of major corporations?

The decision addressed that you blithering idiot.

 

[domer76]

big shock, once again the nations highest court avoids doing it's job making them irrelevant.

Have you carried that popgun of yours into the courthouse yet, pussy?

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Have you carried that popgun of yours into the courthouse yet, pussy?

Why do you wet yourself when you see or read about a gun, pussy?

 

[leaningright]

Roberts was a huge mistake as a Justice

This I agree with....

 

[evince]

The decision addressed that you blithering idiot.

inform me

use a respectable link