SCOTUS Rulings

Fischer is the big case most directly concerning deep-state lawfare against Republicans, so far against the person of Trump.  It hasn’t dropped yet, but others have.  Good signs from the court.

I’m split on the goodness of the recent red-flag ruling, which affirmed limits on 2A for “credible threat” domestic abusers.  Big picture, I will still stand up and say that the Constitution forbids it.  Yet, I’m also happy that there is a tool to protect women from predictable violence.  How many times do we read a news story and lament that the system failed to protect a woman who was literally warning that she would be killed and by whom?  Obviously, this WILL be abused by the deep state to simply call every conservative man a “credible threat,” because that’s how this fill-in-the-blanks game works.  Emergency powers may only be used in emergencies, therefore everything becomes an emergency if needed.  So I’m split on this one.

Randy Barnett (famous lawyer guy) said that there are three ways to determine the meaning of the Constitution — original intent, text interpretation, and whatever five of nine judges in robes say.  While I objected to the crass reality of the last, it is reality nonetheless.  The Court has an opportunity to rule based not on law, not on intent, not on text, but solely on pragmatics.  heaven knows the Court has done it before: John Roberts wanted ObamaCare reeeel bad and that’s how he saved it.

Now we have an army of tiny noisy lawfare foot-sloggers doing the administration’s bidding, investigating and indicting Trump from coast to coast.  Clearly, this is not how it’s supposed to work.  The Court’s opportunity is to look at two alternative futures, one in which this sort of thing proliferates, and one in which it gets shut down.  I’m split.  I cannot say that I support this sort of decision-making, and it may be the “Missouri Compromise” which supposedly avoided the Civil War but which in reality just made it inevitable.  Best intentions and all of that.

Yet we also cannot survive another four years of the deep state “Biden” administration, no matter whom the deep state gets to replace him, either before or after the election.  Yes, I know we seem to say that a lot, “cannot survive”, and indeed, we have not survived.  We have been fundamentally transformed, and we will never regain what has been lost.  What we have given away through inattention and timidity would now require literal warfare to regain, and that’s just not going to happen.  Not to our benefit, anyway, although war may still come — it will be a subjugation when it comes, and we will go under.  So a SCOTUS decision made for expedient reasons, based on fishy principles, might not be the worst thing on offer.  The lawfare is one road to Hell and the shoddy decision is another.

See you there.

Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to SCOTUS Rulings

  1. Avatarctlaw says:

    The big problem is that this is more a due process issue than 2A as seen in Footnote 2:
    —————— 2Many of the potential faults that the Fifth Circuit identifies in Section 922(g)(8) appear to sound in due process rather than the Second Amendment. E.g., 61 F. 4th, at 459; id., at 465–467 (Ho, J., concurring). As we have explained, unless these hypothetical faults occur in every case, they do not justify invalidating Section 922(g)(8) on its face. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987) (a facial challenge fails if the law is constitutional in at least some of its applications). In any event, we need not address any due process concern here because this challenge was not litigated as a due process challenge and there is no such claim before us. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a).

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

Leave a Reply