New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

[KLB]

He sure did. Alito looked to be fed up with Bryer's dissenting argument that flew in the face of Heller, and he let him have it.

Would be interesting to have been able to hear them argue in person.

 

[BigRed]

I will say while I like Thomas's opinion and it is the one with the teeth, Alito's concuring opinion is simply fire that roasts Breyer's dissenting opinion. In fact that is the only reason for it, as it states.

Breyer deserves all the Hell fire he gets. That twit has been a thorn in the side of Liberty from the start.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Would be interesting to have been able to hear them argue in person.

Very much so.

Breyer deserves all the Hell fire he gets. That twit has been a thorn in the side of Liberty from the start.

Who are you, and what have you done with BigRed? There is not a single * in your(whoever you are) post.

 

[BigRed]

Very much so.

Who are you, and what have you done with BigRed? There is not a single * in your(whoever you are) post.

It's my kind and gentle side.

 

[JEBland]

It's my kind and gentle side.

And you reserve it for Breyer?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And you reserve it for Breyer?

I agree, someone check his house quick for a cracked open pod.

 

[chipbennett]

He sure did. Alito looked to be fed up with Bryer's dissenting argument that flew in the face of Heller, and he let him have it.

The smacking down of the dissenters should only get more entertaining in the next term.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The smacking down of the dissenters should only get more entertaining in the next term.

And this case is a prime example of conservative logic and liberal log... er... um... thought. You see the conservative justices carefully weigh it out and explain clearly the FACTS and reasons that they came to the decision.

Reading the dissent is entertaining and infuriating all at once. And the fairly rare response to the dissent pimp slaps them for those failures. The dissent is full of feelz and devoid of facts based arguments. And thankfully their lack of logic and jurisprudence is pointed out for all the world to see. "not only are you dead wrong, I'll tell you WHY you are wrong."

 

[KG1]

And this case is a prime example of conservative logic and liberal log... er... um... thought. You see the conservative justices carefully weigh it out and explain clearly the FACTS and reasons that they came to the decision.

Reading the dissent is entertaining and infuriating all at once. And the fairly rare response to the dissent pimp slaps them for those failures. The dissent is full of feelz and devoid of facts based arguments. And thankfully their lack of logic and jurisprudence is pointed out for all the world to see. "not only are you dead wrong, I'll tell you WHY you are wrong."

Bryer in his dissenting argument was trying to use the two-step approach giving deference to feelz instead of Constitutional rights. That is the standard the lower courts kept using to uphold bans and restrictions.

 

[chipbennett]

And this case is a prime example of conservative logic and liberal log... er... um... thought. You see the conservative justices carefully weigh it out and explain clearly the FACTS and reasons that they came to the decision.

Reading the dissent is entertaining and infuriating all at once. And the fairly rare response to the dissent pimp slaps them for those failures. The dissent is full of feelz and devoid of facts based arguments. And thankfully their lack of logic and jurisprudence is pointed out for all the world to see. "not only are you dead wrong, I'll tell you WHY you are wrong."

The dissent in WV v EPA is a prime example: who cares what the constitution says or what laws the legislature passed; Congress can't possibly understand climate science, and we have to do something.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Bryer in his dissenting argument was trying to use the two-step approach giving deference to feelz instead of Constitutional rights. That is the standard the lower courts kept using to uphold bans and restrictions.

Yep. I understand their thoughts. Yes, there is a possibility that bad things might happen. But that doesnt outweigh what the constitution says. If the constitution says "You may run with scissors", we cant ban running with scissors just because somebody *IS* gonna trip and stab themselves. Too bad.

 

[KG1]

Yep. I understand their thoughts. Yes, there is a possibility that bad things might happen. But that doesnt outweigh what the constitution says. If the constitution says "You may run with scissors", we cant ban running with scissors just because somebody *IS* gonna trip and stab themselves. Too bad.

Exactly. It would be like banning the 1st amendment rights for everyone who peacefully and lawfully assemble to exercise that right because a few might unlawfully abuse the right to incite riots and others might get hurt or killed in doing so.