Finally, in a first for this court, gunners lose one

[SteveG]

Who to thank: Justice Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

[Janit]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Maybe what kicked in here is an understanding that when women are homicide victims, the perpetrator is very often an armed current or former intimate partner.

And these types of violent men don't reform easily or often.

This Court has been remarkably unkind to women up to today, so as a reversal it is good to see.

Likely it's more convoluted than that. They've realized that men in these situations are enabled to perform de facto abortions, and that's what they want to prevent. They still don't care about the women.

[Racer X]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=pdq]
Calvinball.

Can’t have interest balancing. Unless we want to...

Methinks someone did not read the actual ruling (particularly pages 11-13)
it's obvious they didn't. I'll clue them in when all this gets properly broken down.

But I'll toss this one out right now. Even the 3 dissenters in Bruen fully accept that the Bruen is the law of the land, and reaffirmed it here, and must be followed regardless of personal feelings or personal reservations.

[pdq]

Smote wrote:

But I'll toss this one out right now. Even the 3 dissenters in Bruen fully accept that the Bruen is the law of the land, and reaffirmed it here, and must be followed regardless of personal feelings or personal reservations.

An 8-1 Supreme Court majority just ignored the central test of Bruen (presumptively unconstitutional without long historical precedence). Thomas, who wrote Bruen, is pissed.

Is Bruen gone? Nope. (Not yet, at least). The conservative clutch will trot it back out any time they feel so inclined, no doubt.

But that’s Calvinball at the Court these days. Make up the rules as you go.

Which apparently cuts both ways from time to time.

[pdq]

BTW, I wonder if Hunter had anything to do with the court’s about-face.

Rahimi wasn’t exactly the most sympathetic defendant. It might have been politically difficult to say that Hunter should be in prison for buying a gun he never used while granting carte blanche to this serial-abuser who was fond of brandishing and taking potshots at folks.

That’s silly, of course. This SCOTUS would never think about politics.

[NewtonMP2100]

.....just keeps confirming what a $hithead Clarence Thomas is.....

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
...
An 8-1 Supreme Court majority just ignored the central test of Bruen (presumptively unconstitutional without long historical precedence)...

I see that someone STILL has not taken the time to read the actual ruling (yet feels compelled to post an opinion on it), despite that a link to it (and even what pages to read) have been previously posted on this thread.

[JoeH]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=pdq]
...
An 8-1 Supreme Court majority just ignored the central test of Bruen (presumptively unconstitutional without long historical precedence)...

I see that someone STILL has not taken the time to read the actual ruling (yet feels compelled to post an opinion on it), despite that a link to it (and even what pages to read) have been previously posted on this thread.
Perhaps they have and disagree with your interpretation of the importance of that section. So they managed to find some historical precedence to wrap he ruling around. But they have ignored so much other historical precedence in rulings like Bruen that I would just consider it window-dressing.

[SDGuy]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
[quote=pdq]
...
An 8-1 Supreme Court majority just ignored the central test of Bruen (presumptively unconstitutional without long historical precedence)...

I see that someone STILL has not taken the time to read the actual ruling (yet feels compelled to post an opinion on it), despite that a link to it (and even what pages to read) have been previously posted on this thread.
Perhaps they have and disagree with your interpretation of the importance of that section. So they managed to find some historical precedence to wrap he ruling around. But they have ignored so much other historical precedence in rulings like Bruen that I would just consider it window-dressing.
I would hazard a guess that that is NOT the case; this particular poster enjoys repeating articles and opinions on something (written by others), without reading the source material itself - this is not the first instance of it happening.

[pdq]

I don’t waste my time participating in Calvinball.