Second Amendment

SCOTUS Should Drop This Second Amendment Case, a New York Times Columnist Argues, Because Mass Shootings

The justices would be abdicating their duty to uphold the Constitution if they let such political considerations decide legal issues.

|

During the term that begins this fall, the Supreme Court is expected to consider its first potentially important Second Amendment case since 2010. The case involves New York City's tight restrictions on transportation of legally owned guns, which the city modified in the hope of rendering the case moot after the Court agreed to hear a challenge to them. New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse, who was the paper's Supreme Court reporter for three decades, is hoping the justices will decide not to hear the case after all. Her argument is not legal but political, which is puzzling in light of the Supreme Court's responsibility to enforce constitutional guarantees.

On its face, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York poses a narrow question, since it involves a policy that the plaintiffs describe as "an extreme outlier" and a "one-of-a-kind prohibition." New York City is (or was) unique in dictating that gun owners may take their weapons out of their homes, even when they are unloaded and locked in a container separate from the ammunition, only when traveling to and from gun ranges within the city. New Yorkers were not allowed to take their guns to ranges, second homes, or shooting competitions outside the city.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that policy last year, concluding that it did not violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the fundamental right to travel, or the First Amendment right of expressive association. But after the Supreme Court decided to take up the case, the city revised its regulations to allow transportation of guns to second homes, ranges, and shooting competitions outside the city. It urged the Supreme Court to drop the case in light of that change.

The plaintiffs argue that the new policy does not make the case moot, noting the Supreme Court's "well-grounded skepticism of voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct." The city, they say, still maintains its "unwavering view that the ability to transport a licensed handgun is a matter of government-conferred privilege, rather than a constitutional right." The plaintiffs object to aspects of the new rules, noting that "the revised regulations demand continuous and uninterrupted transport (forbidding a stop at a gas station or coffee shop en route), require written permission before a handgun can be taken to a gunsmith, and preclude transport to a summer rental house." And they point out that "the City's revised rules, unlike a judicial declaration that the longstanding rules are and always have been unconstitutional, do nothing to prevent the City or another jurisdiction from using past non-compliance as a basis for denying future licenses."

Assuming the Supreme Court does not decide the case is moot, Greenhouse notes, it could overturn New York City's rules without setting a precedent that would cast doubt on other forms of gun control. But the case could provide an opportunity to clarify the level of scrutiny that courts should apply to restrictions on gun rights as well as the extent to which the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Greenhouse thinks the justices should leave those questions unresolved because many Americans support new gun control legislation as a response to mass shootings.

If that seems like a non sequitur, that's because it is. "The sound of gunshots is still ringing in the country's ears," says the subhead above Greenhouse's column. "Do the justices hear it too?" She is hoping that Chief Justice John Roberts, who along with former Justice Anthony Kennedy, seems to have been leery of Second Amendment cases, will hear the gunshots and join the Supreme Court's liberal wing in deciding that the challenge to New York's regulations is moot.

"We do know that Chief Justice Roberts is acutely conscious of the tides swirling around the Supreme Court and lapping dangerously at the walls that are supposed to insulate it from politics," Greenhouse writes. "Does it bother him that the partisan divide in public opinion about the court is wide and growing wider, as demonstrated in a Pew Research Center poll last week? What does he make of the fact that firearms regulation is rising rapidly on the political agenda in the wake of the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio?"

If the Supreme Court starts clarifying the limits that the Second Amendment imposes on gun control, Greenhouse worries, "the political branches will effectively lose the ability to enact what the emerging political consensus deems to be common-sense regulations." That would be bad, she thinks, because it would "pre-empt debate and turn the politics of gun regulation over to the judges."

This formulation is completely backward. If the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from politics, why should it be consulting polls and political agendas before deciding whether to hear a case? Those factors have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether New York's regulations are constitutional or the question of whether the case is moot. It is the Supreme Court's job to override the "political consensus" when the resulting policies violate the Constitution.

If voters and politicians were clamoring to restrict "hate speech" in response to the mass shooting in El Paso, which seems to have been motivated by an anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant ideology, would Greenhouse advise the justices to stay out of the way? Would she want the Supreme Court to reject an apposite First Amendment case because it might "pre-empt debate" by making it clear (once again) that criminalizing racist speech would be unconstitutional?

To give you an idea of the considerations that Greenhouse thinks should sway the court, she cites a March for Our Lives brief that "incorporates the voices of nine young people who have experienced gun violence." She says "their stories are heart-rending, but that's only part of the point." When it comes to the issues before the Supreme Court, the emotional resonance of experiences with gun violence is not a point, or even part of one, that the justices should be considering.

"The brief's real message lies in the description of the political activity that each young person has undertaken as part of an effort to reset the country's approach to guns," Greenhouse writes. She quotes what she takes to be the nut of the brief's argument: "The court's ruling here must not deprive them of their hope and their ability to effect change through the political process." Yes, it must, to the extent that the change they are trying to achieve conflicts with the Constitution in a way that the New York City case might clarify.

It is bad enough that gun policy is driven by raw emotional appeals that defy logic. It would be fatal to the Second Amendment if judges who are charged with defending the Constitution succumbed to the same demagoguery. But I guess that's the idea.

Advertisement

NEXT: Will Brexiters Bring Free Trade Back to Britain?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “All right, you go back and tell them that the New York State Supreme Court rules there’s no Santa Claus. It’s all over the papers. The kids read it and they don’t hang up their stockings. Now what happens to all the toys that are supposed to be in those stockings? Nobody buys them. The toy manufacturers are going to like that. So, they have to lay off a lot of their employees, union employees. Now you got the CIO and the AF of L against you and they’re going to adore you for it and they’re going to say it with votes. Oh, and the department stores are going to love you too and the Christmas card makers and the candy companies. Ho ho. Henry, you’re going to be an awful popular fella. “

    1. And yes, I do know that SCOTUS justices are not elected.

  2. “The sound of gunshots is still ringing in the country’s ears,” says the subhead above Greenhouse’s column. “Do the justices hear it too?”

    It’s not even a political consideration. It’s a feelz consideration.

    Naturally. That is, after all, how the progs want the entire government to be run.

    1. It’s not even a political consideration. It’s a feelz consideration.

      Those two things seem to align a lot, though.

    2. “Naturally. That is, after all, how the progs want the entire government to be run.”

      Not quite. That is how the Progressives wish to justify how they want to run the government. As for how it will actually be run; in will be run according the the convenience of The Better Class of People.

      The Progressives are nothing more than one more batch of nose-in-the-air would-be aristocrats.

      1. True enough; only the feelz of “important” people will be taken into consideration.

      2. “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

        ― G.K. Chesterton, 1930

  3. Ms. Greenhouse aptly demonstrates the adage: An opinion is like an anus, everyone has one.

    No thanks Ms. Greenhouse, we’ll let SCOTUS decide for itself what cases they will hear. No need for an uber-lib filter here.

    1. … and they all stink!

      1. Mine smells like roses.

        1. I went blueberry picking yesterday, and ate as many as I picked. When I took a shit this morning is actually smelled like blueberries. I’m serious. I had a blueberry smelling shit. So I suppose if you eat enough roses….

      2. And if you don’t have one you’re full of shit

    2. Having a anus is a good thing. Without it, you’d be full of shit.

      1. LOL! Touche! 🙂

    3. Methinks, Ms. Greenhouse is full of Gas!

  4. If the Supreme Court starts clarifying the limits that the Second Amendment imposes on gun control, Greenhouse worries, “the political branches will effectively lose the ability to enact what the emerging political consensus deems to be common-sense regulations.”

    Now apply this thinking to abortion you stupid hack.

    1. +1 million

    2. They just want to win; make it about abortion, gay marriage, or any other issue they favor then the USSC is the preferred venue to legislate what they want.

      I’ve tried to read this article and follow some sort of logical or at least consistent argument [don’t be political, but political…] and in spite of my two graduate degrees I just can’t.

      1. the USSC is the preferred venue to legislate what they want.

        Probably less so now. Especially if Trump gets to pick a few more.

        1. Until they get the chance to pack the Court, then it will become a perfect rubber stamp.

        2. If Trump, before or after 2021, get to replace Notorious, I can only imagine the shit that will get lost among that crowd. I foresee secession along the West and Northeast coasts. They can have Chicago as a West Berlin style stopover.

          1. At the very least it will be amusing to see what novel Constitutional doctrine they will concoct to “prove” that it’s unconstitutional for Trump to appoint RBG’s successor.

            1. Trump’s nominee to replace RBG in the SCOTUS used to kidnap the parents of illegal immigrants, dress up in black face, then run gang rape parties while spouting anti Native American slurs.
              It’s true – while unclear on the time or place, some lady told me it happened to her just 25 years ago

              1. *25-ish. And the parties included what appeared to be the spit-roasting of muslims. Maybe.

          2. Replacing her with Amy Comey-Barrett would be the feel-good comedy of the decade.

      2. Social Justice is “Our Side Wins”

    3. +100

    4. The sky is darkened by the approaching cloud of screeching harpies:

      THAT’S DIFFERENT!!!

      1. Winged monkeys!

      2. Stop imitating my mom when I point out a piece of hypocrisy!

    5. You’re spot on. Don’t take away our rights, but make them either impossible or impractical to exercise in any meaningful way (ie the “undue burden” precedent in Casey.)

      I’m sure Greenhouse cheered for the SCOTUS decision in WWH vs Hellerstedt. But guns are icky.

      1. I live in California (ikr). When you go to a light rail stop, every ten minutes the screen reminds you that you are not allowed to have any firearms or large knives on public transit or in a public transit terminal. Effectively, if you don’t have a car, you have no Second Amendment rights in California. Talk about undue burden. I wonder if Greenhouse is in any way concerned about what these policies do to the aspirations of ordinary citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights. Why should an idiot be able to exercise his Free Speech rights to harangue people for signatures on petitions in front of the grocery store, but your right to self-defense disappears practically the minute you go outdoors?

    6. You want her to apply a logically consistent standard for SCOTUS’s activities in judging matters of law?

      You monster!

    7. You figure abortion absolutism prevents sensible regulation of abortion, you bigoted rube?

      1. Texas wasn’t even allowed to apply medical treatment facility standards that ALREADY applied to other medical treatment facilities to abortion clinics because it was “an undue burden”…so apparently no, abortion can’t have any “sensible” regulations. Abortion is somehow MORE special and MORE protected than heart transplants or skin grafts…

        1. Abortion is somehow MORE special and MORE protected than heart transplants or skin grafts…

          Well, legally it is. There’s no supreme court case guaranteeing a right to heart transplants or skin grafts.

          1. Making it clear that Roe v Wade had NOTHING to do with bodily autonomy, privacy, healthcare, or “choice” like all the pro-abortion folks claim. Roe v Wade was about nothing more and based on nothing more than WANTING to be able to have an abortion for convenience sake…

        2. The Texas law was passed after the horrors of Gosnell. Leftists claimed the majority of Texas women opposed the law when in truth, 58% supported it. In addition, 68% of all Texans think abortion should be legal, but there should be limitations such as banning it after 20 weeks. Like guns, the actual problem is the left wants no compromise other than their ideology. They want guns to be banned so the people have no way to push back when they abolish the Constitution as “outdated” and want abortion on demand to allow the extermination of the undesirables in the the future. It is an meme but sadly true. The Left sees “1984” as a plan for governing, not a work of fiction.

      2. Greenhouse does you fucking retard. You completely miss the fucking point. God damn you are stupid. Go away.

      3. Abortion is a right we all wish your whore mother exercised before her brother knocked her up and brought a retarded turd like you into the world. Retroactive abortion is a right we wish you’d exercise by shoving a .45 up your ass and pulling the trigger.

    8. In many states there is more governmental regulation and concern over the safety of patrons at nail salons than for pregnant women undergoing a sometimes dangerous surgical procedure at abortion clinics

  5. “This formulation is completely backward. If the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from politics, why should it be consulting polls and political agendas before deciding whether to hear a case?”

    This is “new logic” as applies when progressives do not see a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, that they are otherwise more than happy to have weigh in on political issues. And as everything is political nowadays…

    1. Quo….You give uber-libs a lot of credit here. I commend you. BUT…

      Do you actually think uber-libs apply reasoning and logic to the topic at hand? 🙂

      1. “Do you actually think uber-libs apply reasoning and logic to the topic at hand?”

        Fuck no. That is why I call it “new” logic. Truth over facts, morality is more important than facts, to quote a couple. ????

    2. But, but, but, Chief NutJob Roberts told us “there are no such things as Obummy judges or Bush judges, etc….”

      Considering how many judges picked by GOP prezs have turned out to be LIB jackasses, I guess Roberts may be right!

      Besides, Thomas, they can all go to hell!

  6. Hahaha. Poor Lefties. They know their race is lost.

    All gun control is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, as New York will find out soon.

    1. Are you calling this as the watershed moment at which right-wingers become competitive in the culture war, and are able to stop the liberal-libertarian mainstream from shoving even more progress down clingers’ whimpering throats?

      1. It will be a great pleasure to have Trump jammed down your throat again, asshole bigot.

        1. Knowing the betters have won the culture war, and will continue to set the rules with which inconsequential clingers like you must obsequiously comply, makes me content.

          Look at the bright side: You will be replaced, which will end your service in compliance with your betters’ preferences.

          1. It will be a great pleasure to have Trump jammed down your throat again, asshole bigot.
            Oh, and fuck off.

            1. Double fuck off, and he is just an asshole here to annoy people. Really not worth the effort to reply to, as is usually the case with trolls.

            2. Careful, you might drown in proggie tears.

          2. Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me. The “betters”? I thought believing you are superior to others is a bad thing. I mean that is why your side calls everyone racists and other vile crap. Yet when you express the same bigoted opinions, it is perfectly okay. Amazing…

      2. ” stop the liberal-libertarian mainstream from shoving even more progress down clingers’ whimpering throats?”

        Kirkland does us the public service of being open and honest about the Left’s motives.

        Orwell knows Kirkland:

        Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’

        But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

  7. How does the right to bear arms mean anything if it doesn’t apply outside of your home?

    1. +1 don’t ask, don’t tell

    2. As someone on here pointed out, that free speech is not limited to your home.

  8. why should anyone give a rat’s ass what this harpy thinks? She’s just another lunatic writing for the asylum that is the NY Times

    1. As I often say. I’m all out of fucks to give, and don’t even have a rat’s ass for her.

  9. Linda Greenhouse provides a beautiful summary of leftist political ideology.

    “The only thing that’s consistent about us is our eternal lust for unchecked power.”

  10. If the right-wing push toward gun absolutism promotes enlargement of the Supreme Court in a couple of years, and accelerates the mainstream backlash against gun nuttery, it might be worthwhile.

    1. It will be a great pleasure to have Trump jammed down your throat again, asshole bigot.

    2. This is a hilarious take.

    3. Is that the liberal part of the consensus, or the libertarian part?

    4. What if Trump wins in 2020 and enlarges SCOTUS to 15 justices, all clones of your favorite Clarence UncleThomas?

      1. Kirkland hates the black guy on the Supremes?

        Typical.

        Just goes to show that all the cries of racism are pure projection.

    5. LOL you think we are currently in a state of “gun absolutism”? If so you’re an even bigger knucklehead than I thought.

      1. “gun absolutism”
        Lame attempts at inventing pejoratives almost suggest an OBL-level troll.

        1. Please don’t insult OBL by comparing him to this guy.

      2. Name a gun you and/or the NRA thinks it’s OK to ban.

        1. In my case there isn’t one.

          But in case it escaped your notice, I’m not running the country. My point to the good Reverend was that our country is NOT operating in a state of “gun absolutism” nor is it trending that way overall. In some regions gun rights are reasonably well protected, but to act as if there are no laws or regulations we have to follow is disingenuous.

          At most, the NRA is holding the line for the status quo. That’s not “absolutism” to me. I suppose to you anything less than full-on confiscation is “gun absolutism” so we’re not likely to agree.

        2. “Name a gun you and/or the NRA thinks it’s OK to ban.”

          Read A2. And fuck off.

        3. Name one person who doesn’t know that you’re a retarded inbred Okie faggot.

        4. Name a book, a movie, a magazine, a viewpoint that YOU think should be OK to ban.

    6. Hopefully someone will shoot you multiple times in the face.

  11. Her argument is not legal but political, which is puzzling in light of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to enforce constitutional guarantees.

    Not puzzling at all. She works for the New York Times.

    1. +1000

    2. The Times just needs to tweak the headline on this OpEd a few times to satisfy the progressive mob they cater to.

  12. Yes, the entire legal system should be based on the feelings of some dimbulb lefty .

  13. “Would she want the Supreme Court to reject an apposite First Amendment case because it might “pre-empt debate” by making it clear (once again) that criminalizing racist speech would be unconstitutional?”

    Yes, of course she would. These days liberals hate the First Amendment almost as much as they hate the Second.

  14. Fuck these people. Amend the constitution if you want to ban guns. There is your mechanism right there. These people are fucking tyrants not fit to have power over raising a dog.

    1. Open wider, clinger.

      1. It will be a great pleasure to have Trump jammed down your throat again, asshole bigot.
        Fuck off and die some place where your stench won’t bother decent people.

        1. +++

      2. nice sex joke.

      3. Hi, gecko!

      4. I think the phrase “ one trick pony” was invented to describe you
        Come up with some original material for once in your life

      5. Rev,

        As a spokesman for the wacky progressives, won’t you guys even consider trying to amend the constitution to abolish 2A? That is the entirely legal way to put constitutional power to persecute citizens in the hands of the federal government.

    2. they can ammend the Constitution all they want. MY and YOUR right to self-defense and a defense against out of control government tyranny will remain. Those rights predate the poitical entity now known as the United States of America. Nor are they dependent upon any political organisation or movement.

      They are part of our right to exist.

  15. Hey Jake! Finally a premise I can fully support.

    Judges and Justices should be following the law. If the law is unworkable for some reason, then we need to change the law. In the case of the second amendment, it clearly says “shall not be infringed”.

    That’s pretty clear language that invalidates all sorts of federal arms restrictions. Like machine guns, howitzers, bombs, etc. Sure, it is bad policy for people to be running around with 10,000 pound bombs. But the law doesn’t have an exception for “unless the legislature thinks it is a bad idea”.

    If they had simply done that as the courts started hearing cases, we’d have a very, very long constitution by now. But at least we would have a consistent and predictable set of laws.

    1. You can own machine guns, you just have to obtain a special tax stamp. As for a 10,000 bomb, unless you own a C-130 or a heavy bomber, you probably ain’t going to be running around with one, or a real threat.

      1. “Shall not be infringed.”

        Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

        Requiring very expensive and difficult to obtain special permission is unquestionably in the category of infringing.

        And exactly how much of a threat a 10k lb bomb is might be debatable. Sure, if you live in rural Idaho and don’t own a tractor-trailer, that’s probably no threat to anyone other than yourself. But in Brooklyn? I doubt anyone would tolerate some guy on the 4th floor having one of those in his living room.

        Hence the policy dispute. But it is hard to make the argument that “Shall not be infringed” includes “except when we think it is a bad idea”, which is the point. When the language says “shall not be infringed” you don’t get to start arguing about where you draw the line with your infringing. “Shall not” is the amount of infringing allowed. None, nada, zip. You wanna do some infringing? You gotta get a new amendment that says you can.

  16. Luckily, when it comes down to brass tacks, Ms. Greenhouse has but one vote, and one voice. She may think she is somehow blessed with some form of omniscience; if so, she would be deluded.

  17. Liberals can be forgiven for thinking that the purpose of SCOTUS is to push a progressive agenda, as it did that for over 50 years.

  18. Wonder how Ms. Greenhouse would have felt about Brown vs. Board of Education, since most of the people at the time would have disagreed with that decision as well.

    1. Well that was different. It even FELT different.

      We are dealing with persons who do not consider the necessity of consistency in their beliefs, much less logic. That is such a “western” notion, any way. “Truth”* and morality carries the day, facts not so much.

      *is whatever you believe it is

      1. It is because their beliefs are NECESSARILY inconsistent.

      2. “Logical consistency is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples”

  19. If the Supreme Court starts clarifying the limits that the Second Amendment imposes on gun control, Greenhouse worries, “the political branches will effectively lose the ability to enact what the emerging political consensus deems to be common-sense regulations.” That would be bad, she thinks, because it would “pre-empt debate and turn the politics of gun regulation over to the judges.”

    In Germany in the 1930s there emerged a political consensus that Jews should be stripped of their civil rights. And they were. And the courts did nothing. Linda Greenhouse must’ve applauded.

    1. Exactly on point.

      This is why we need to go find an old civics textbook (from before they neutered the topic for political purposes) and make copies for everyone, particularly our legislature.

      The entire point of the “American Experiment” is to keep all of the people free from tyranny – including the tyranny of the majority. That’s why they took the trouble to write down a constitution.

  20. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/13/sheldon-whitehouse-warns-supreme-court-not-hear-gu/

    Meanwhile, Sheldon Whitehouse and 4 other Senate Dems filed a letter openly threatening the court with restructuring if they don’t fall in line on this gun case. The part of the letter where they note that the Republican court makes partisan Republican decisions is true enough, but christ…still really nuts to see sitting Senators actually filing court documents that say “nice 9 member Supreme Court you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something *happened* to it.”

    1. Reason is ok with that

      1. I may have missed it. Where did they endorse court packing?

    2. The Funny thing is the court does not like to be threatened this threat may just back fire on them. can we incite redflag laws over these threats

  21. Her missive was entirely for one man: Chief Justice Roberts.

    1. I’m hoping Roberts is impeached for FISA Court Abuses and Trump gets to replace him.

      Another Gorsuch or even Kavanaugh replacing Roberts would be a huge improvement.

  22. “The brief’s real message lies in the description of the political activity that each young person has undertaken as part of an effort to reset the country’s approach to guns,” Greenhouse writes. She quotes what she takes to be the nut of the brief’s argument: “The court’s ruling here must not deprive them of their hope and their ability to effect change through the political process.”
    Same sex marriage
    Abortion
    Civil rights
    Free speech
    Search Warrants
    Wire Tapping
    Self-Incrimination
    Eminent domain
    Execution
    Euthanasia
    Drug War
    ………….

    1. Asset forfeiture?

      1. Enhanced interrogation?

  23. It is not SCOTUS job to judge the constitution. If the people want to amend it then go for it but it’s hard to change and that’s intentional

    What part of “shall make no law” infringing on the right to own arms do people not understand?

    1. It doesn’t even say THAT…it just says “shall not be infringed.” That would include not only laws, but regulations, policies, and decisions put into place by bureaucrats, members of the Executive, Legislative, OR Judicial branch…

  24. It’s not the Supreme Court’s place to decide what the Constitution means. The Constitution is a living document and its meaning is merely a reflection of whatever meaning the reader wishes to give it. It’s like interpretive dance. I chose to view the contortions of the dancer as a metaphor for the struggle of Man to simultaneously escape and embrace the duality of his nature, the paramedics chose to see it as a grand mal seizure. Who’s to say which is right?

    1. Who’s to say which is right?

      The lawyers?

    2. I’ve seen modern interpretive dance. I’d rather watch a seizure.

      1. They mixed up the vids; that *was* a seizure. The ‘dance’ was shown in the hospital…

      2. I like the kind where the women get nekked.

        1. The Left always has to get nekked.

          1. They’re usually fat and ugly too.

  25. The justices would be abdicating their duty to uphold the Constitution if they let such political considerations decide legal issues.

    That train left the station about 100 years ago.

    1. Not for all of them.

      Some on the Right still play by the rule of law, for the most part. With a couple more Trump Justices in the next 6 years, we could conceivably have rule of law in the Supreme Court again.

      At least until the Dems go court packing.

      Enjoy yourself, it’s later than you think.

  26. Linda Greenhouse is a Democrat hack. When the Obamacare cases went to the Supreme Court, she wrote columns about how the justices were supposedly allowing their political views to interfere with their interpretation of the Constitution. Now she wants the justices to allow politics to interfere with their interpretation of the Constitution.

  27. Just read the restrictions, both then and current, and realize what disingenuous nonsense it is.

    You need written permission to take your gun to a licensed gunsmith?

    You can’t take your gun to a shooting range outside the city?

    You can’t take it to a relative’s house in upstate new york?

    Just eliminate all of the city gun regulations on the grounds they were enacted in bad faith. Surely the state level regulations are adequate.

    1. If we start eliminating laws because they were enacted in bad faith, we aren’t going to have many laws left, certainly no gun control laws lol

      I fully endorse this idea.

  28. She wants people to have to drive to the gas station, then go home, get the gun, then go to the range, then go straight home again, drop the gun off, then go do anything else? How fitting that her name is Greenhouse.

    1. They are for anything that is anti gun. Be is absurd restrictions on transporting them, an onerous tax, or even Beto style confiscation. Anything that will make owning one more difficult if not impossible. Because “epidemics” of mass shootings, white supremacy, name your bogey.

  29. This entire screed is so fucking desperate; there is no rational basis for her “argument” if you can call it that; it’s a mishmash of polemical nonsense that follows no line of reasoning and actually contradicts itself.

    1. So, it’s a lefty whine?

    2. Well that is how the left operates, hypocritical, contradiction after contradiction, blabbering non-sense garbage.

      1. Donald Trump, nonhypocrite, consistent, coherent.

        1. You lost, loser. Grow up. And fuck off.

        2. Tony – retarded, one dimensional, idiotic, inbred Okie faggot douche.

  30. You weren’t bitching about “raw emotional appeals” when it was Bubba jacking off to his toys demanding that the SC invent a 2nd amendment right out of thin air.

    Anyone talking about the SC being insulated from politics is lying or naive. Why did it give the green light to gay marriage only after it became popular by a national majority? Gee, hmm.

    It’s a couple centuries too late to pretend that the SC are brains in a vat interpreting a sacred text’s true meaning. They say what it means. That’s their job, for better or worse. So they might as well pay some attention to the real world their decisions are going to affect in drastic ways.

    1. What the hell is this nonsense? Who’s Bubba? In what vote or election did gay marriage become popular? How does SCOTUS invent text that predates them? Which real world, past, present, or future should the Justices be most concerned with affecting in drastic ways?

      I’m going to stop asking questions now because I’m pretty sure the answers don’t make sense outside your own head.

      1. Bubba is the dupe the gun industry has made believe that his right to own weapons of mass murder was what the founders intended. They got some of their team on the supreme court, and the rest is history. A history of a bunch of preventable mass murder.

        Gay marriage became legal right about the time it passed 50% in polling support. It’s just a correlation, but as I’m sure you’ll agree, the constitution is rather silent on the matter, specifically.

        I humbly suggest that the supreme court, as a quasi-legislative body, should consider real-world effects of their quasi-legislation, since the alternative is insanity.

        1. I humbly suggest that the supreme court, as a quasi-legislative body, should consider real-world effects of their quasi-legislation, since the alternative is insanity.

          I asked one question that didn’t rely on whatever fucked up, oxymoronic narrative is taking place in your head and you specifically avoided answering it.

          1. You asked five questions. Let me answer them more directly, if you must.

            1. This nonsense is what I go on to explain.
            2. I explained who Bubba was.
            3. No national vote or election took place on gay marriage. The polls to which I referred did, though.
            4. The court should be aware of the same reality we both supposedly inhabit. That reality. Like, look around. That one.

            1. 3. No national vote or election took place on gay marriage. The polls to which I referred did, though.

              Even you have to know that 4 out of 5 dentists makes for absurd social policy.

              4. The court should be aware of the same reality we both supposedly inhabit. That reality. Like, look around. That one.

              Yup. The one that existed before me and will exist long after me that, by you own tenets on other issues we can irrevocably fuck up, that one. I see it. It’s not at all clear that you do.

          2. Skipped one.

            5. Re: supreme court rediscovering existing text. What else are they doing? If it all means what it plainly means, what do we need them for? As I tried to patiently explain, whether you like it or not, ever since the stewardship of John Marshall, the Supreme Court makes law. It does so by interpreting and reinterpreting a quite short constitution that governs a quite complex country.

            1. Shitbag, try posting once when you’re sober.
              And fuck off.

              1. I can’t post in my sleep, silly.

                1. So we have turd, the lefty loser with daddy issues, and what seems to be coke and kiddie porn habits who posts nothing but lies here.
                  And the embittered gay drunk who edits the “Dog Walkers Weekly” or some such for a gated compound in fly-over country doing the same.
                  To both of you: You are welcome to your habits, whatever they may be, but don’t bother assuming the rest of us don’t notice ‘diminished capacity’.
                  Oh, and please, both of you, Hihn, and the asshole bigot; go far away and die where decent people won’t be bothered by your stench.

                  1. I am not embittered. At least not with respect to anything you know about.

                    1. I repeat:
                      “And the embittered gay drunk who edits the “Dog Walkers Weekly” or some such for a gated compound in fly-over country doing the same.”

                    2. No but you are one seriously maladjusted stupid inbred Okie faggot douchebag.

    2. God you are a dumb shit

    3. You weren’t bitching about “raw emotional appeals” when it was Bubba jacking off to his toys demanding that the SC invent a 2nd amendment right out of thin air.

      The 2nd Amendment has always been in the Constitution, and it has always said ‘shall not be infringed’. It was idiot justices who somehow interpreted that to mean “Well of course it can be infringed sometimes, in certain ways, for good reasons we’ll recognize when we see them.”

      Anyone talking about the SC being insulated from politics is lying or naive. Why did it give the green light to gay marriage only after it became popular by a national majority? Gee, hmm.

      Why did democracy-loving liberals in California feel the need to go the the courts after gay marriage was democratically voted down three times? Have they no respect for democracy?

      It’s a couple centuries too late to pretend that the SC are brains in a vat interpreting a sacred text’s true meaning. They say what it means. That’s their job, for better or worse. So they might as well pay some attention to the real world their decisions are going to affect in drastic ways.

      No. Their job is to interpret the text of the Constitution as it is written, using the meanings of the words that were prevalent during the time it was written, and determine if any laws violate the text. Their job requires them to be insulated from the other branches. Legislators and state governments can pay attention to the real world and, if they feel the need and there is sufficient popular support, amend the Constitution to reflect sufficiently popular changes.

    4. What? If you want to actually talk about inventing rights put of thin air, Roe v Wade is the best example in US history. Some invented right to privacy is justification for ending the life of a child. The actual intent and reason for the 2nd amendment is very clear if you bother to read the writings of the men who wrote it. George Mason is the Constitutional delegate who fought for the Bill of Rights. He clearly stated “we have not fought a revolution to replace one tyrant with another. The only way for a standing army to rule, is by first disarming the people.” In Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton who thought the amendments were unnecessary admitted “The only protection for the people from the excesses of government is the right to keep and bear arms.” You claims otherwise are shown as false by these and many other letters, essays and speeches by the Founders.

  31. “Her argument is not legal but political, which is puzzling in light of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to enforce constitutional guarantees.”

    Not puzzling at all. The Left is *opposed* to the rule of law. Social Justice means Our Side Wins.

    1. See Tony’s comment directly above for details.

      1. “Our side wins.”

        Republicans would never do this. Certainly not to the extent that they blow up any democratic norm they can get their claws on and take ridiculously asinine nonfactual political positions just to get morons to vote for them.

        And they never, ever try to get legislation via courts. It’s definitely not the case that millions of idiots decided to forever throw away any respect they might have had in order to elect a fat, orange sex predator as president for the precise and sole purpose of using the court to get their way politically.

        1. And the annoying thing is that you know this. You know I know you know this. But you lie. You’re all liars. You think The Emperor’s New Clothes was an instruction manual on life.

          I hate liars.

          1. You think The Emperor’s New Clothes was an instruction manual on life.

            You know that the overwhelming majority of humans are sex predators and that some are more just more selective or discerning than others. You know I know you know this. But you lie. You’re a liar. You have literal parades where everyone can live out their fantasy of being an emperor in new clothing in real life.

            You hate yourself.

            1. Our parades are relatively light on the clothes, which is why they’re fun. We do them in summer for this reason.

              Most humans are sexual predators? That sir I must object to. Many of us seek an equal, adult partnership in a sexual relationship, not prey.

              1. You already made it clear you hate yourself. Repeating your claims isn’t going to convince me further.

                1. And you seemed to admit that you’re a sexual predator, so maybe throwing around insults is not entirely productive.

                  1. And, may I add, you’re not saying you’re a sexual predator in order to make an esoteric semantic argument.

                    You’re saying sexual predation is normal human behavior for the sole purpose of defending Donald Fucking Trump from such an accusation.

                    There are depths to pathetic sycophancy that science is only just discovering.

                    1. Tony
                      August.15.2019 at 6:19 pm
                      “You’re saying sexual predation is normal human behavior for the sole purpose of defending Donald Fucking Trump from such an accusation.”

                      Post when and if you’re ever sober. And fuck off.

                    2. Give up your sock puppet praising your gigantic clock, you retarded faggot?

                  2. so maybe throwing around insults is not entirely productive.

                    It’s almost like writing ‘orange sex predator’ on the board 1000X is dumb whether someone made you do it or you did it yourself voluntarily.

                    1. Y’all shat on Obama for far less. Including having a natural skin tone.

                    2. “Y’all shat on Obama for far less.”
                      “You can keep your doctor” said that lying PoS.

                    3. So you’re whining that the government didn’t give you the free shit you didn’t want.

                    4. “So you’re whining that the government didn’t give you the free shit you didn’t want.”

                      Keeping my doctor is free shit I didn’t want?
                      Whatever you’re drinking, nobody else wants any of it; that sort of abysmal stupidity is dangerous.
                      Oh, and fuck off and die someplace where your stench won’t bother decent people.

                    5. So Obamacare forced your doctor to reject you as a customer? Not even with all that cash in your pocket?

                    6. “So Obamacare forced your doctor to reject you as a customer?”
                      Me? No.
                      The poor schmucks getting insurance from their employers? Yes.
                      Are you really this fucking stupid?

  32. “the political branches will effectively lose the ability to enact what the emerging political consensus deems to be common-sense regulations.”

    There has to be something to keep the democracy wolves at bay after everyone, well 48ish% of everyone, has voted on what to have for dinner.

  33. Greenhouse is a hack who has an emotional reaction to non political events which in turn have little to do with the rights of individuals in the Bill of Rights. Question! Why is anyone considering anything she writes?

  34. Is reason really stating that the SCOTUS should not uphold the constitution.
    Has reason really gone full retard.
    Never go full retard.

  35. It will be a great pleasure to have Trump jammed down your throat again, asshole bigot.

  36. Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan.
    This is a really bad strategy.
    At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself.
    Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldn’t count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment.
    James Madison gave us the blueprint. When the federal government commits unwarrantable acts, the Father of the Constitution didn’t say “file a lawsuit in federal court.” Madison advised a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. Don’t depend on politically connected lawyers to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/depending-on-federal-judges-to-protect-your-gun-rights-is-a-bad-plan/

  37. If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

    1. If we were truly smart, we would be arguing for the entire issue of guns to be removed from federal jurisdiction and returned to the states only. If NY wants to ban guns or restrict them so severely they are impossible to use, they should have that right. People who have a serious objection can move to another state. My main problem with all of this is leftists pushing for national laws which impose the views of urbanites on people living in totally different environments.

  38. Supreme Despots..
    The Odious Fiction Destroying America – The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates..
    We now have social transformation without representation. And that is what the Supreme Court is in our day – despots.
    And they are not the final arbiters – as Jefferson states, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”
    They proffer Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – the ‘supremacy clause’ – for their notion of judicial supremacy. But when you read Article 6, paragraph 2, you realize that the Supreme Court isn’t even mentioned, nor are federal courts of any kind mentioned. Article 6, paragraph 2 – known as the supremacy clause actually gives supremacy to the Constitution!
    Wholly opposite of this view of ‘judicial supremacy’ was the view held by America’s founders. They viewed the judiciary as being the weakest branch of the government.
    At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous.”
    https://lessermagistrate.com/the-odious-fiction-destroying-america/

  39. This is enoug for me to Earn money at home on laptop ,Just work on laptop 4 to 6 hour par day and Make 50 Dollar Easily This is very nyc for me and my family…..

    Check It Here….

    =====>>>> Here is More information <<<<=====

  40. The gun grabbers are in a panic, if the Supreme Court strikes down the NYC law it will set a precedent that would hamper future gun control laws. Restricting where a gun owner can carry his guns is next on their agenda. What’s the sense of owing a gun for self defense if you can’t take it outside your home?

  41. Frankly, we have given Linda Greenhouse more attention than she deserves. Next.

  42. Leftists are freaking out because they know they are gonna lose. No government can tell its citizens you are only permitted to have this item within the city and use it only when and how we mandate. NYC cannot tell citizens they cannot take a legally owned item to a different location, especially when that location is outside its jurisdiction. Just imagine the reaction if the item was a car, instead of a gun. Leftist city governments have been pushing the envelope with very creative laws and if the SCOTUS rules against them in this case, all the previous laws will fall.

  43. Just remember, the reason the anti-gun zealots say you do not need a gun is because the police are paid to protect us from crime so self defense is not a valid reason for owning a gun. However, the same people say you cannot trust police because they use their guns to hunt minorities and are all racists and evil. Anyone see a problem with these totally contrary points of view?

  44. Why are leftists always so angry? I read posts by them and they are all so angry about every issue. It must be so sad to go through life pissed off all the time.

    1. Angry, sad…and probably tired. I know it would tire me out to have to remember all those bizarre pronouns, but also the proper adjectives to use to describe anything related to Trump vs. adjectives used to describe anything else. Also, when to throw in “Trump era” and “Trump’s America” when you can’t make the case that he’s related to an issue in any way.

      Too much work. Actual analysis is less work, and you don’t have to remember as many conclusions.

  45. This would almost seem to be coordinated with the “nemesis curiae” brief submitted by five Democratic congresscritters. Trying to pressure Roberts to turn from considering the Constitution to considering “man, it’ll be awkward at the charity gala if I vote this down”. And it’s worked before.

    Clearly, some animals are more equal than others.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.