Collins voted 'no'. Some speculation that this was allowed by the Republican leadership since they knew they didn't need her vote on this one, and it might help her get elected in a very very tight race back home.
She's a horrid RINO, but still better than a democrat in that seat.
OK, so hopefully we can test Trump's new Justice League with some 2A cases, and find out if they're worth a damn.
I don't think it is speculation, rather hard fact.Collins voted 'no'. Some speculation that this was allowed by the Republican leadership since they knew they didn't need her vote on this one, and it might help her get elected in a very very tight race back home.
She's a horrid RINO, but still better than a democrat in that seat.
OK, so hopefully we can test Trump's new Justice League with some 2A cases, and find out if they're worth a damn.
Oh yeah, as promised -- going to knock one back for "St Mitch"!
Yep, we should see some 2A cases now ...
I sure hope so. It's long past time for the Court to play catch-up on protecting our 2A rights.
Absolutely. Plenty of evidence to back that up.Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?
Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?
I would add that the four solid Constitutionalists have put in writing (in very strong terms) that the 2A cases need to be heard, while all declining to hear the cases. This happened for exactly the reason you state. They don't trust Roberts and would not risk a case going the wrong way.Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?
Absolutely. Plenty of evidence to back that up.
Yes. It seems to be thought that Roberts is so much of a wild card that neither wing of the SCOTUS wanted to grant cert on 2A cases. I'm sure he's rather proud of that power he wields.
I would add that the four solid Constitutionalists have put in writing (in very strong terms) that the 2A cases need to be heard, while all declining to hear the cases. This happened for exactly the reason you state. They don't trust Roberts and would not risk a case going the wrong way.
Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?
Actually, many originalists disagree with this definition of "break".As mentioned by toddjoyce elsewhere, just because she's an originalist doesn't mean she'll grant our every wish regarding the 2A -- far from it! Because the original meaning of "infringed" is "break", so according to the 2A, to be unconstitutional, a law has to break your RKBA. The example I gave elsewhere regarded AP ammo -- banning AP ammo does not break your RKBA, because you still have the whole world of ammo available to you. Same with bump stocks and suppressors and SBRs and weird calibers and all kinds of things -- totally OK to ban them, because banning them doesn't break your RKBA.
Eventually, if you keep banning one thing at a time, you'll have banned so many things that the aggregate of all those individual bans is a general ban of such significance that it does break your RKBA, this is called "incrementalism", where by increments, they eventually destroy the 2A. That is something that is applicable in places like NY and CA, but not Texas.
Anyways, there are a lot of "actually broke my RKBA" type cases out there from anti-2A places like CA and NY that the Court needs to get through before we start worrying about the stuff that's borderline. One of those should be sent up very soon as a "trial balloon" to test the weather of the new SCOTUS, and then we'll see where we stand.
Actually, many originalists disagree with this definition of "break".
For some idea on ACB’s overall thought processes, here’s a 2019 talk/Q&A done at Hillsdale College. She speaks specifically to 2A and her opinion in Kanter v Barr starting at 28:05 and going for about seven minutes.
Even Trump commented to his people that the senate was probably lost.