I love the headline of Kate Riga's report on Clarence Thomas' lone dissent in the Supreme Court ruling curbing the "right" of a proven domestic abuser to carry arms:
"Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling"
"n the late 18th century, when the constitution was ratified, men’s abuse of women was penalized by neither custom nor by the law. Men were allowed to beat their wives, their children and any women they held authority over in their personal lives: such beatings were not generally illegal, nor especially frowned upon, but understood as a private prerogative that all men held over the women in their lives."
"Many men still treat such beatings this way: as an entitlement of manhood. The supreme court’s 2022 Bruen decision, authored by Clarence Thomas – a ruling that drastically expanded gun rights and restricted government ability to regulate guns to a sphere no greater than that which was practiced at the time of the constitution’s ratification – would have largely agreed with them. At least, until this Friday."
The #SupremeCourt will return to the bench starting at 10 a.m. Friday to release its next round of 2024 decisions, with about a dozen major rulings expected over the next week or so. The justices do not say in advance which opinions will be released
#ClarenceThomas wrote the majority in NYSRPA v. #Bruen & was the sole dissent in today’s decision.
Bruen’s ruled a #NewYork#law was unconstitutional & that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by #2A.
#SCOTUS said states are allowed to enforce "#ShallIssue" permitting, where #ConcealedCarry applicants must satisfy criteria, like #BackgroundChecks, but "#MayIssue" systems using "arbitrary" evaluations by local authorities are unconstitutional.
“…if the #SecondAmendment right was historically understood to allow an ofcl to disarm anyone he deemed 'dangerous,' it may follow that modern Congresses can do the same...
“…Yet, historical context compels the opposite conclusion. The Second Amendment stems from English resistance against 'dangerous' person laws.”
@timo21 it depends because #Bruen says no-ish, #Rahimi says yes-ish. Basically, IMO, this is good because it didn’t rule that domestic abusers have an unfettered right to #guns, but it doesn’t clear up how to devise, apply or enforce any given federal or state #GunRegulation.
A #Texas court found that #Rahimi had “committed family violence” & that such violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” It issued a protective order aka [#RestrainingOrder] that suspended Rahimi’s #GunLicense, prohibited him from having #guns & warned him that possessing a #firearm while the order remained in effect might be a federal #felony.
Rahimi later violated the protective order & was involved in 5 shootings between Dec 2020 & Jan 2021.
The #5thCircuit rejected the historical comparisons that the government offered to justify the #law barring those w/a #RestrainingOrder from possessing #guns.
In this decision, #ClarenceThomas uses the #Bruen “historical parallel” standard. He says that the #DangerousPersons categorization in English law granted individuals the right to bear arms for the purpose of protecting themselves AGAINST dangerous persons, but does not grant the government the right to take guns away from dangerous persons & so it doesn’t apply.
What seriously pisses me off about #ClarenceThomas’s dissenting opinion is that he’s basically arguing that we can’t use the #precedent English #law to TAKE AWAY individuals’ #GunRights, but guess what? That’s exactly what they did in #Dobbs. They took away #WomensRights to #ReproductiveHealthcare based on a bunch of bullshit.
"The price the rest of us pay for Clarence living high on the Harlan hog is more gun carnage, more government-mandated births, and more women dying from lack of medical care. He is, for all intents and purposes, jeopardizing 333 million American lives to make money he doesn’t need.
"In Garland v. Cargill, a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas — who apparently made time in his busy schedule spent traveling on a billionaire’s dime — the Court threw out a Trump-era rule that had banned bump stocks in the wake of the October 2017 shooting in Las Vegas. It’s the latest in a near-unbroken streak of victories for the gun lobby now that conservatives control the federal courts."
But it’s not just a case about guns — it’s also one that shows just how far the balance of power between the branches of government has been drastically tilted in favor of the courts. …
Thomas’s bump stock opinion … reads like a newspaper comment section after every mass shooting, where gun enthusiasts engage in hyper-technical explanations of how AR-15s aren’t actually assault weapons."
If Catholicism is to blame for the Supreme Court and all Catholics are the same, always agreeing with the Pope, then how can I vote for Biden.
After all, he literally is as to blame for #ClarenceThomas as George HW Bush--Biden was the Senate Judiciary Chair. When Anita Hill was brushed off at the hearing it was Joe Biden who did the brushing off.
Or is it possible, just possible, it's more complicated than "all Catholics are alike"?
…the #judiciary is an equal branch of #government & congressional #Democrats have limited opportunities to enact concrete changes.…
#Republicans, who control the #House, oppose legislation to tighten ethical guidelines for the justices & have portrayed overhaul as a political effort to damage the legitimacy of a #conservative#SCOTUS that has delivered them major victories on #abortion & other issues [+ they worked decades to install this court].
#Durbin also announced action on another #oversight issue, which pleased progressive activists including Aronson. The #Judiciary Cmte had issued subpoenas for #Texas#billionaire#HarlanCrow & #conservative activist #LeonardLeo in Nov related to their interactions w/the justices, but had not enforced them. The Cmte reached a deal w/Crow on Thurs in which he disclosed he paid for an additional 3 trips on a private jet by #ClarenceThomas.
Imagine how ruthless, callous, cruel, and dangerous the hard-right Catholic bloc controlling the Supreme Court could be if they weren't ardently pro-life.
"We need to be very clear, the right wing on the Supreme Court with their perverse misinterpretation of the 2d Amendment are directly responsible for many of the nearly 50,000 gun deaths that occur in the US each year. Guns kill people. But so do judges who serve the NRA."
"The Supreme Court didn’t just become a problem for America over the last couple years. The highest court in the land has been a right-wing playground for years, despite the outlier decisions in favor of same-sex marriage and Obamacare. The conservative court has worked overtime to restrict the rights of millions of Americans, from minority college applicants to women to potential victims of gun violence and beyond."
"The court is out of control, making decisions based on specious arguments that expose — once again — what a ridiculous joke the concept of conservative 'originalism' is. Essentially, when it comes to this crackpot legal theory the device used to decide the intent of the founders is 'whatever makes Republican voters happy.'"
"But the court’s problems, as revealed by the journalists at ProPublica (and NOT the New York Times or Washington Post, who are too busy canoodling with justices or actively hiding their behavior), go far beyond their right-wing interpretation of the law. The court is corrupt."
Someone needs to write a "fictional" story about a fictional justice named, oh, say, Cancel Shatmore and his fictional sugar daddy Worn Harcal.
The court's ruling unwinds one of the few actions the federal government has taken in recent years to combat #GunViolence, as Republican opposition in Congress has made comprehensive #firearms restrictions highly unlikely. The case did NOT involve the #2ndAmendment, but was one of several before the justices this term involving #federal#regulatory#power.
“The Supreme Court has properly restrained executive branch agencies to their role of enforcing, & not making, the law. This decision will be pivotal to NRA’s future challenges of ATF regulations.”