imagine thinking that a winning strategy for your court case is to tell the court that they are dumb, shit talk justices on the court by name and insinuate that they corrupt the court, and imply that you'll fuck with the court if it doesn't reach the conclusion you want
like it's one thing to believe that, but imagine if that was literally your argument, presented to that very same court. in writing. officially. that's your case. lmfao
>send baby diaper filled with shit >"this baby had hopes and dreams before the freedom you advocate for killed it" >"I ate the shit earlier it was fucking good" >"no possible way it could have come from a false flagging bleeding kansas John Browning High temper Karl Kasarda Jizz Rap album maker" Fucking liberals we ban ngigirs from owning guns we don't need more gun laws we need more red flags and common sense laws. Your lynching was brought to you by the Clinton fictional group for the larger pedophile network that makes up the air oh my moral panic.
Leo Brooks
That image can't seriously be real. "Baby Killers" is too much.
Josiah Morales
NY changed the law to avoid an unfavorable ruling, but they're still proceeding with the case.
Christian Mitchell
>baby killers Is this even real? Coming from their political side? Ironic.
Jacob Mitchell
Source?
Liam Phillips
i don't speak legalese, what the fuck is going on here?
SCOTUS hasn't announced that they are dropping it yet after agreeing to hear it. They could drop it before October, they could hear it and issue a narrow ruling preventing similar laws in the future, they could extend DC v Heller protections to outside the home, or they might also put a giant fucking smackdown on states who issue chicken shit laws they know are constitutional and then yank right before they hit the SCOTUS.
Anti-gunners are scared of the third option, but every state's AG is going to be livid with rage at NYS if the fourth option occurs. Seriously, I don't know why NYS let it go this far. It was far, far dumber than DC's mayor pushing for a SCOTUS ruling on Heller, and I assume they believed since the appeals court backed them up they would be fine.
I'm surprised the founding fathers didn't put something in to scramble the government and put new people in if this corruption came about. How blind we once were.
I would think they thought things like the second amendment and other such checks and balances that the people wield, without realizing just how comfortable modern life would be and how that'd throw a wrench in the works there.
I agree that the 2A was that protection but it feels like we're on the edge of a point where we can't go back. If things change too fundamentally it can't change back. Or maybe I'm just reading everything wrong and when things get better/the left stops trying to appeal to crazies it'll get better. I dunno anymore.
Julian Lopez
If you read any of the anti-gunner literature, they believe they've been completely stymied at the federal level, while the vast majority of states keep enacting castle doctrine, stand your ground, and shall-issue conceal carry laws. That may not be the actual reality, but just the way they see it.
Joshua Myers
I mean, it's very true that until guns stop being this sort of taboo killing machine in the media and more young people genuinely get into guns that it's kind of a losing battle, the point of no return would be a major infringement like a federal AWB, with or without a sunset clause that isn't responded with a huge protest, potentially even revolution if it's really, really bad.
Ethan Torres
The same founding fathers that turned around and supported the federal government killing civilians wholesale to enforce federal law?
Not so subtly implying if the Court doesn't drop the case or even worse rules against them, they'll launch a media campaign to sway people into trying to neuter the court's powers. Literal fucking brain damage on whoever thought writing this up and submitting it to the Supreme Court was a good decision,.
>SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: The judiciary was not intended to settle hypothetical disagreements. The Framers designed Article III courts to adjudicate actual controversiesbrought by plaintiffs who suffer real-world harm. This reflects the Framers’ intent that the judiciary “may truly besaid to have neither force nor willbut merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, 464(C. Rossiter ed. 2003)(A. Hamilton)
>The influence effort directedat this Court has been industrialized. In thisparticular“project”to rewrite and expandthe Second Amendment, petitioners are flanked by an army of nearly sixty amici.As usual,the true identities and funding sources of most of these amiciare impossible to ascertain.Amicusgroups claim status as“social-welfare” organizations to keep their donor lists private,7andthis Court’sRule 37.6is ineffective at adding any meaningful transparency. Were there such transparency, this amicus army would likely be revealed as more akin to marionettes controlled by a puppet master than to a groundswell of support rallying to a cause. There are some early signals: At least 8 amici purport to represent gun organizations which, like petitioner, are affiliates of the NRA. >At least 32 amici filing briefs in support of petitioners do not disclose their organizational donors, which prevents this Court, other parties,and the public from knowing whether parties in this case have funded amici’s effort.At least 6 amici report receiving funding from foundations and other often anonymously funded sources connected to Leonard Leo’s network that regularly fund ideological litigants and amici before this Court.
TL;DR so far- the NRA has numerous affiliates actively trying to influence the Supreme Court to control and politicize the debate, and shape legal discourse in a way that is dishonest and harmful to the American public
Elijah Stewart
>affiliates actively trying to influence the Supreme Court to control and politicize the debate, and shape legal discourse in a way that is dishonest and harmful to the American public That's because we're already in a civil war.
This is the type of shit that is ruining our country. I get that you don't like the 2nd Amendment, but until its repealed......the states do not get to interpret it anyway they want.
Twisting history and case law to ignore 14 very simple words does not create a respect for the law. Anyone with half a brain can what it states in the Constitution.
Sure argue reasonable limits......... historical legal limits.....historical interpretations....., but don't pretend that it doesn't exist. If the 2A doesn't exist.....then a lot of other rights will not be worth the paper they are printed on. Then we are headed towards a civil war.
Luis Perry
>The Court and the country have witnessed an accompanying explosion of strategic “faux” litigation—cases fabricated to bring issues before the Court when litigants presume it will give them policy victories. For example, we have seen flocks of “freedom-based public interest law” organizations that exist only to change public policy through litigation, and which often do not disclose their funders. We have seen behavioral signals, like litigants who rush to lose cases in lower courts “as quickly as practicable and without argument, so that [they] can expeditiously take their claims to the Supreme Court” >These systematic, industrialized efforts often seek to end-run standing, case-or-controversy, and other separation-of-powers guardrails; often obscure the real party-in-interest; and align with a larger and even more ominous pattern—a pattern of persistent efforts by large anonymous forces to influence the Court.
tl;dr- the court doesn't appreciate deliberately forcing constitutional crises to force the Supreme Court to make sweeping political legal rulings (see gay marriage).
An appeals court sided with NYC. This got up to the SC. NYC panicked that they may lose and changed the law, thus arguing the lawsuit is moot. The SC is not amused and has said that it's NOT a moot point.
Thomas Sullivan
NOt
Jonathan Sanders
>The SC is not amused and has said that it's NOT a moot point. they haven't said that yet, currently that's what each side (and their 100 groupies) are trying to hash out, hence this brief in the OP. i actually think NY has a somewhat reasonable argument but i think it's the weaker of the two sides and they've shown nothing but incompetence and disdain for the system, so god willing they get fucked into the next dimension
>deliberately forcing constitutional crises to force the Supreme Court to make sweeping political legal rulings maybe if shitbag legislators stopped passing unconstitutional laws it wouldn't be necessary
Blake Robinson
The irony is that lefties pioneered the tactic to weapnize the courts through excessive litigation in friendly circuits and issuing national injunctions from lower courts. Until fairly recently this shit just didn’t happen.
Lincoln Bennett
SCOTUS is getting pissed the fuck off at the blatant bullshit that's going on with people intentionally sandbagging in the lower courts so they can game the appeal system and get to SCOTUS so a national ruling can be made at the behest of shady backers. To summarize it even further, SCOTUS knows it's being used as a tool to advance the policies of rich assholes and they are not amused in the slightest.
Eli Nelson
Holy shit, I just read it. Are they trying to throw the game on purpose? What is the strategy here? Pissing all over the legitimacy of the SC might even get some of the leftie judges pissed off at nyc’s hubris
They have a solid point. I'd be pissed off too if I was an SC judge and saw the SC being turned into a way for special interest groups to pass laws without involving the Legislative and Executive branches.
Camden Gutierrez
that's not what clarence thomas said last year
Ethan Brooks
holy fucking shit. The court is gonna fucking rape them just to make a point.
Elaborate, since he is by far one of the loudest voices decrying the lower courts being practically ignored and seen as mere touch-and-go's on the path to his bench.
Logan Morgan
>Hey guys just so you know our fav polls say you're all a bunch of corrupt assholes and that we should totally shake you guys up if you don't pick our side, so maybe you should dismiss this case altogether. Or else.
What fucking galaxybrain thought it was a good idea to send this out, if I was a Supreme Justice I'd do the closest thing possible to having them and their cause crucified for the sheer audacity of this letter.
Adrian Fisher
The tyrants are afraid.
Cameron Hughes
Can you explain what the mean? Very confused and worried I knew the were horse shit but.
Brandon Howard
>how to turn a somewhat likely 5-4 ruling against you into a 7-2, at minimum, in one easy step
Jonathan Perry
>the court doesn't appreciate >SCOTUS is getting pissed the fuck off Both these posts imply this brief is written by the Supreme Court, and that it represents the Court's opinion. You're either retards who need to google "amicus brief", or liars trying to confuse people. Either way, fuck off. You are now aware that this brief was written by a group of senators to the Supreme Court, expressing their own views in hopes of influencing the Court.
Cooper Flores
>not so thinly veiled threats directed at the court >submitted in writing >as part of a legal document These people are dumber than I ever would have imagined in my wildest fantasies.
If you aren't kidding, the lefties just shot themselves in the foot. They're just saying "Rule the way we want you to or we'll try to turn the public against you." Literally threatening the justices on their home turf.
Noah Lopez
>Both these posts imply this brief is written by the Supreme Court Are you fucking blind or just pretending to be retarded? In what sense did I imply SCOTUS wrote a brief that has Sen. Whitehouse as the author? Fucking idiot.
The Founding Fathers intended that the electorate consist of white men of good standing. That's why it worked initially.
Alexander Young
try to leave the bigthink to the other people in this thread okay user?
Austin Martinez
>hey nice gun you have there, dont try to move it from your home or well charge you with a felony >reasonable
Jonathan Rivera
>Hey guys we're kinda neglecting to take on 2A cases here to the point it's pretty painfully obvious, we should stop pretending it doesn't exist and give it the proper we do to the rest of the Bill of Rights >proof that Justice Thomas wants lower courts to just send every appealed case their way Nah go play in traffic.
Are they kidding? Have they never stood before a court before?
Noah Long
senators don't need to stand before a court, they'll just make the witnesses commit suicide using two shots to the back of the head.
Carson Bailey
They intended for 2A to kick in and have the people delete the nationwrecking shitheads before it got anywhere near this bad
Gavin Edwards
>Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it to be "restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." this is what happens when they accidentally let their tokens write the document remember RBG got called out for never hiring any minorities
