The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New York Governor Submits Amicus Brief To Justice Kavanaugh In Rahimi
"Across America, survivors of domestic abuse will now wait in fear to see whether Justice Kavanaugh..."
For a generation, Justice Kennedy was the Court's swing vote. Erwin Chemerinsky used to joke that if he could, he would have put Anthony Kennedy's face on the cover of the brief. Now we are seeing similar appeals to the Court's new median voter, Justice Kavanaugh.
Today's New York Times includes a guest essay by Kathy Hochul. The Governor of New York wrote about Rahimi. But in practice, the essay functions as an amicus brief aimed at Justice Kavanaugh. She extolled his Bruen concurrence, and said there was a "split" with the majority:
Before oral arguments are heard, there's no way to tell which way the Supreme Court will rule. The precedent set by Bruen is extraordinarily troubling. Yet even within the court's majority in Bruen, there was a split. Justice Thomas kept his focus on historical arguments. But a concurrence by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined, left room for certain basic protections, noting that "properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a 'variety' of gun regulations."
Huh? Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full. There was no "split." But, Justice Kavanaugh did what he always did--reach out to decide issues that were not in front of the Court in order to signal moderation. He did so in Bruen, Dobbs, and other cases. Regrettably, Justice Kavanaugh has taken the mantle from Justice Kennedy as the chief mediator of the United States.
Indeed, Governor Hochul claimed that the concurrence "helped inform" New York's response to Bruen.
This concurrence helped inform New York's response to Bruen. After New York State's century-old gun law was overturned, I took immediate steps to restore protections from gun violence, including signing new laws to strengthen training and gun licensing requirements.
To paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts in Students for Fair Admissions, it is poor practice to read a concurrence to figure out what the majority opinions means. Moreover, much of New York's legislation amounts to "massive resistance" of Bruen, that finds no grounding even in the Kavanaugh concurrence.
Hochul ends with a naked emotional appeal to Justice Kavanaugh, laced with the obvious gender-motivated violence charge:
An extreme, out-of-control Supreme Court put gun safety laws at risk in Bruen. Across America, survivors of domestic abuse will now wait in fear to see whether Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues deem laws that protect survivors to "properly" interpret the Constitution.
Over the next year, we will see a similar litany of appeals to Justice Kavanaugh. The subtext is clear: rule against Rahimi and atone for the allegations made during the confirmation hearing. Preview: it won't work. Nothing will ever make these people not want to destroy Justice Kavanaugh.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kavanaugh is a squish. One of the worst SCOTUS noms in recent history.
kavanaugh may be a squish, but sotomayor and kbj are vastly worse.
According to kbj & sotomayor - it is unconstitutional to comply with 14A
Jackson is a semi-retarded black who couldn't have gotten into law school, much less gotten to where she was without affirmative action, and Sotomayor is a semi-retarded mestizo who couldn't have gotten into law school, much less gotten to where she was without affirmative action. To make matters worse, Sotomayor is a fat lesbian. Does it surprise you that both of them support unconstitutional actions that benefit their respective races?
The Volokh Conspiracy attracts and cultivates a target audience of right-wing bigots.
Prof. Volokh surveyed conservative legal academia and chose Josh Blackman as a Conspirator.
This is the future of Republican-conservative legal academia.
Carry on, clingers.
Dear Diary,
Today someone committed the most heinous of crimes! The 27th Amendment states that when a black Queen speaks, White people must immediately sit down, shut up and listen. Today, the blackest, most affirmative action Queen in America's dark racist history spoke and this CisHet White Male didn't sit down and listen!
War crime! I demand justice!
Angrily,
Arthur White Knight of the BIPOC
Did you mean the 28th Amendment? Last time I checked, the 27th Amendment was about changing the salary of Congress members.
Dear Diary,
Someone doesn't believe I know how many amendments there are!!! I didn't spend all those years in 1L for this disrespect!
RAWR,
Arthur The Constitutional Expert (Just Like Barry Soetoro)
Tune down the racism as there is more than enough to go after Jackson & Sotomayer on.
The latest is Sotomayer forcing universities to buy cases of her books -- this is a classic way the left funnels money to people. Imagine the outcry if Clarence Thomas was doing this....
Bulk purchases of political books to game the bestseller lists is more a conservative practice. I support Congress imposing ethical standards on the Supreme Court, although I am quite confident that Sotomayor is well ahead of the conservative justices, her side business of promoting her books notwithstanding.
"Bulk purchases of political books to game the bestseller lists is more a conservative practice."
Is it? My impression is that it's a widespread practice across the political spectrum.
Your link shows Elizabeth Warren spending the most at under $20,000. I seriously doubt that kind of money would buy enough books to affect bestseller lists, and they are required to give royalties to charity. It is true that book advances and royalties are the major loophole for outside income for members of Congress, but that's different from gaming the bestseller lists -- without that manipulation, politicians actually have to write books people want to buy.
From "The GOP’s big bulk book-buying machine is boosting Republicans on the bestseller lists" (in which Republican organizations spent far more to buy books by Republicans)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/gop-book-deals/2021/04/15/154f3820-9ca5-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html
Didn't a speaker of the house resign decades ago because some company bought 20,000 books and shoved them in a warehouse?
Uhhh, I mean planned to hand them out because he was so sage?
Jim Wright resigned in 1989 amidst ethics investigations, although gifts from a Fort Worth developer seem more significant than his book royalties. Newt Gingrich promptly arranged a $4.5 million book deal, with bulk sales subsequently reported, and long after his resignation there were purchases and large payments from his own "charity", Renewing American Leadership.
Ironically, both men denounced cannibalism/cannibals when resigning as House Speaker.
It's a time honored money laundering technique in political circles. Kudos to Hunter for being a bit original, and selling shitty paintings, instead.
"Sotomayor, 69, has amassed at least $3.7 million in book sales since she joined the court in 2009. Throughout that time, the justice has spoken at dozens of public and private institutions and has often used members of her staff, who are funded by taxpayers, to push these institutions to purchase her books, according to tens of thousands of pages of documents obtained."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/sotomayor-s-staff-nudged-colleges-to-purchase-her-books-records-show/ar-AA1dJaBz
That fat fuck needs to buy food too!
She's also a diabetic, which makes me wonder about her health. Imagine if Trump got to appoint a 4th Justice in his second term...
So, what, she's in some way beholden to however many thousands of people bought her books, as opposed to those billionaire guys who love helping out the other guys? This sounds like graft more than grift.
That is bullshit behavior, yes. She should be ashamed.
Dunno if you want to get into the ethics of Justices right about now though,
Alito and Thomas are less often in the majority than any of the 3 liberal justices.
You understand that his job is not to vote for the MAGA agenda, right?
"Regrettably, Justice Kennedy has taken the mantle from Justice Kavanaugh as the chief mediator of the United States."
Did you mean that the other way around?
"Preview: it won't work. Nothing will ever make these people not want to destroy Justice Kavanaugh."
I agree on the second sentence. I disagree that it won't work. This man is a coward and a pussy.
Dear Governor:
Why are you wasting your time appealing to the conscience of a man who manifestly doesn't have one?
The lack of consciences more accurately describes you leftists who think that a man erupting inside another man's HIV infected colon is engaging in a constitutionally protected right.
I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who thinks that everything is about gay sex the way you do. You obviously think about gay sex a lot. There are probably gay people who think about gay sex less frequently than you do.
If there's anything that showcases the depravity inside the minds of you leftists, it's your celebration of transgenders and gay anal sex.
FYI, AIDS is far more likely to be transmitted to the receiver than from receiver to donor. Women's bodies have often been described as a death battleground saving the species as it's easy for them to get it from men, but hard to transmit back. They crack and break under the strain, but provide a slowing buffer.
"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."
Weird that AIDS is still like 70-80% homosexuals then, huh?
They also have no concept of monogamy, their whining about their "marriages" notwithstanding.
That's perfectly consistent with it transmitting more often to the receiver, as gay partners are both able to receive, while heterosexual partners are unable to swap roles in that way.
There's literally nothing wrong with any of this. It is bog standard advocacy.
Are you sure?
I am positive that there is district court judge somewhere in the 5th circuit who would enjoin all Democratic governors from writing op-eds as a violation of the First Amendment. Wouldn't be prudent to allow people in the government to speak, after all.
Another class on conflation courtesy of loki13.
Make you a deal; if I sit in on your class for "Poorly understood internet logic memes for dummiez," will you be able to get Judge Doughty to take a ConLaw 101 refresher class?
Is that what that was?
As for Judge Doughty; motion to stay injunction denied, now on to the 5thCircuit. Let's see what happens there.
My faith in a random panel of the 5th Circuit is approximately as great as the rest of the Supreme Court had in Justice Douglas in 1975.
And my feelings about Judge Doughty were reinforced by his decision to deny the motion; clearly, he could use a refresher on federal courts, as well.
Why would he be expected to stay his own injunction? Especially after all the detail he went through in writing it.
You know the drill. Whichever way the 5th decides, there will be another appeal
Because the standard for stays is different than those for issuing injunctions and judges routinely stay their own injunctions?
Yeah. He … doesn’t know much about the law.
You could also toss in the whole issue of stays for interlocutory appeals, prior restraints, and the breadth of the injunction (not to mention it certainly isn’t keeping the status quo), but law-type substance seems disfavored on this blog.
Maybe he’s a district judge in the 5th circuit?
Alito alt
Motion to stay FWIW:
MEMORDANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TOSTAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL AND, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAYDefendants respectfully request that the Court stay its July 4 preliminary injunctionpending Defendant’s appeal of that order. See Notice of Appeal, Dkt. 296. The Government facesirreparable harm with each day the injunction remains in effect, as the injunction’s broad scope and ambiguous terms (including a lack of clarity with respect to what the injunction does not prohibit) may be read to prevent the Government from engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct—including speaking on matters of public concern and working with socialmedia companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes. These immediate and ongoing harms to the Government outweigh any risk of injury to Plaintiffs if a stay is granted, and for the same reason, a stay is in the public interest. Moreover, Defendants have shown a substantial case on the merits regarding Plaintiffs’ lack of Article III standing and failure to present evidence substantiating their First Amendment claims. Accordingly, this Court should exercise its discretion to temporarily stay the preliminary injunction during the pendency of Defendants’ Fifth Circuit appeal.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.297.1_1.pdf
What is the standard? Also, whether it's done "routinely" means nothing unless routinely means always.
obsta principiis
Big Tyranny has small beginnings.
You're right, Dilan. We definitely need to act like your side is acting in good faith when it rapes the bill of rights. Especially since it's so accepted now, unlike your side's new tactic of trying to get justices assassinated now that they aren't mostly pro-government leftists.
yawn
Of course there is nothing wrong with it, Josh is just pointing it out.
He does point out that Hochul was wrong that Bruen was a split decision, but that hardly means there was something unseemly or wrong about writing the oped.
“a naked emotional appeal to Justice Kavanaugh, laced with the obvious gender-motivated violence charge”
This site badly needs a serious female blogger. Or at least someone who should make Josh volunteer at a battered women’s shelter for a few months to see what these women had gone through, often with men who were armed and with a criminal record.
Dealing with Josh Blackman in person is is a cruelty no one, let alone a battered woman, should have to endure. Just replace him with a real law professor instead.
Are you under the impression that these laws do a damn thing to disarm dangerous men?
If they had the appropriate criminal record, this statute wouldn't contribute to disarming them.
~60% of gun charges are dropped. Obviously new gun laws are needed because they aren't using the ones already on the books.
You don't need a gun charge, even striking the Lautenburg amendment simply making more domestic violence crimes a felony would make the convicted person a prohibited possessor.
That needs a conviction. Red flag laws don't honor due process.
It needed a guilty plea, anyway.
The Lautenberg amendment went back and imposed loss of 2nd amendment rights on people who'd pled guilty at a time when the only thing they were facing was a fine that was cheaper than the cost of defending against the charge. It was argued to be constitutional anyway on the basis that (at that time) owning a gun was viewed as a privilege, not a right, and it wasn't a punishment to have a privilege taken away.
I don't see how the Lautenberg amendment can be upheld anymore now that the 2nd amendment is admitted to guarantee an actual right. Certainly, it's retrospective application must be unconstitutional.
"...often with men who were armed and with a criminal record."
Men who were armed and had a criminal record when they met them.... No one mentions this, but women are attracted to these "bad boy" boyfriends because of the power of having a boyfriend that everyone else is afraid of, presuming that he won't turn on them. In most cases, they know who they are dealing with.
Would you deny them the right to take out an RO when they later decide that, after all, domestic abuse is not their thing?
If we did, they might think twice before starting the relationship.
Are attorneys who represent persons accused of domestic violence made to volunteer at a women's shelter for a few months?
No. But they also probably represent DV victims as well. And know how to approach victims in terms of investigation and questioning. So they don’t need a real-world lesson about the the stakes involved, unlike Josh.
"An extreme, out-of-control Supreme Court put gun safety laws at risk in Bruen."
Not something you would put in an amicus brief. If she was trying to persuade Kavanaugh, she (or her ghost writer) are immensely stupid.
When liberals say "gun safety," they mean "full gun ban."
The obvious explanation is Blackman doing what Blackman usually does.
Regrettably, Justice Kennedy has taken the mantle from Justice Kavanaugh as the chief mediator of the United States.
As Willy Wonka said, "Scratch that, reverse it."
Well this is a disturbing insight into the mind of Josh Blackman. This case involves issues that affect some of the most vulnerable people in society: domestic violence victims where the abuser has access to firearms. An incredibly dangerous situation that people are concerned the court will make worse. And yet, according to Blackman, the real goal for politicians and advocacy groups isn’t to protect these people, it’s to destroy the real victim in the situation: Brett Kavanaugh, a guy he doesn’t even like. Josh apparently thinks that people want to hurt Brett Kavanaugh’s feelings more than they want to safe guard the lives and well-being of DV victims. Even for someone as openly morally bankrupt as he is, that’s pretty disturbing.
If you leftists really wanted to safe guard the lives of domestic violence victims, you would lock up violent men. But since that would disproportionately impact your pet blacks and mestizos, you won't.
Does anyone actually like you in real life?
When you penetrate little boys you groom in your new transgender Boy Scout troop, do you at least wear protection?
Gonna take that as a “no.” I mean seriously, when you say stuff like this out in the real world does anyone actually enjoy it…or do they just kind of move away from you.
A few of the Volokh Conspirators devoted years of effort to chasing guys like this ("since that would disproportionately impact your pet blacks and mestizos"> as a target audience.
I like him! I find his takes hilarious, fresh, and true.
Shocker.
Trump is a disease. You and hoppy are the symptoms.
Thanks bro.
"Even for someone as openly morally bankrupt as he is, that’s pretty disturbing."
I would probably be more angry at this if I believed Josh Blackman gave any thought to what we he was writing. As it stands, the evidence is very much against that proposition.
True, there is a high level of thoughtlessness about real life that goes into most of his posts. Everything is somehow related to the justices and their personalities for him or just as often him personally. I suppose it is possible that he would seem less depraved if he ever thought about other people for even ten minutes.
In what way is he thoughtless?
By seeing everything in this situation as an attack on Kavanaugh and not, you know, advocacy on behalf of people concerned about the very real world effects of domestic violence? That’s pretty thoughtless.
A gratuitous insult at the very Court you are arguing to is a poor way to argue.
1. It’s not really gratuitous if it’s relevant to the topic at issue. If you think the court is making public safety worse, it would make sense to call them extreme, even if that’s insulting
2. Whether or not Hochul is effective doesn’t negate the fact that Blackman is thoughtlessly opining here. There are real life stakes involved here and he thinks it’s all about Brett Kavanaugh. That’s not how a thoughtful person would approach things.
I concur with Paul Harding.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14
That sums it up precisely, doesn't it?
As I like to say, the Bill of Rights isn't written on the assumption that the government wants to do good, and needs to be helped in doing that. No, it's written on the assumption that, at least sometimes, the government wants to do evil, and needs to be obstructed.
No doubt we lose some good by obstructing evil, just as we enable some evil by enabling good. It's a tradeoff.
But it's not a tradeoff designed on the assumption that government will always be in the right!
These people have been raised in government schools and have been programmed to believe in the possibility of a good government filled with altruistic, benevolent demi-gods free from human vices. They have so much faith in this possibility that they close their eyes to the reality of government and to the reality of humans with power and no accountability.
They further dehumanized government and turned into faceless, inhuman institutions that some how live and breath on their own and are not constructions of the humans who operate it. But somehow, people who choose the live of civil service are more noble and more selfless than the rest of us.
This sort of religious like faith and dogma enables to simultaneously believe government can solve our big problems, create systems that can by systemically racist and evil, while also at the same time be filled with good, moral people who aren’t racist and evil but superhero’s out to do what’s right for us and the nation.
And they hold those dissonant beliefs all at the same time. Even when presented with mounds and mounds of evidence to the contrary, they still want big government, they still decry racist systems created and operated by the people in government, and yet they still worship political and government elites like they were demigods and will defend their character to their tongues are dry from bootlicking.
Individually, and especially at the lowest level, people in the government are nice enough, because, frankly, almost everyone is nice. The lower ranks of the government are large enough you'd be hard put to find enough not-nice people to fill them.
The higher you move up the food chain, the worse they get, though. Both because being less than nice helps you move up the food chain, and because less than nice people WANT to move up.
Power does corrupt, but mostly it attracts the corrupt...
If reducing gun deaths was a goal, just bring back stop and frisk.
Expanding it to no warrant searches of black residences and businesses.
It will save more lives than gun laws(because its the people, not the guns)
You mean, like the people can't get meth?
It's hard to be sympathetic to those on the left as long as they make no attempt to actually repeal the 2nd amendment via a new amendment. "Too onerous" you say. If so then the harm you claim is not worth the effort to amend.
Another approach would be a grand compromise; something that seems to have vanished from American politics. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. For example, the right agrees to support repeal of the 2nd amendment while the left agrees to support a balanced budget amendment. What fun to contemplate the debate over such a big compromise.
The question of whether we should have a new amendment because something in the existing constitution is bad or we should have the new amendment because the existing constitution isn't being correctly interpreted are two different things.
Those in the latter category would naturally be quite frustrated. They know that enough people disagree with them on policy that they have no realistic chance of amendment. Yet they feel the constitution has been judicially amended through misinterpretation. Whether willful, accidental, or - likely in this case - cocky, judicial amendment is wrong, and not to be accepted.
"Correctly" being the way the left wants the 2A as a civil right only for militia's; militia's meaning the National Guard?
Nope, each state gets to determine the scope of their respective militia…2A is a federalism provision. The federal government just sets minimum standards for the militias but the states are free to do more than the minimum.
And the right is a right of the People, not the Militia, specifically so that it couldn't be eliminated just by manipulating who was allowed to be in the militia.
Grand compromises went out decades ago, when people figured out that you never got what you were promised in return for what you gave up. Grand compromises require trust, and there is no trust, and rightfully so.
Oregon enacted a grand compromise, at the state level, when they established shall-issue concealed carry and universal background checks. Each side gave and got. Guess which side went back on that within a couple of years?
The problem here isn’t so much your ignorance as to what it takes to amend the constitution. That’s common around here. It’s that you think repealing 2A in exchange for collapsing the US economy is some kind of even trade.
Archibald Tuttle 22 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"It’s hard to be sympathetic to those on the left as long as they make no attempt to actually repeal the 2nd amendment via a new amendment."
Fwiw - Stevens wrote a proposed new 2A a few years after he retired. The wording in the new proposed 2A was an admission that his interpretation of 2a in his dissent in heller was wrong.
The framers wouldn’t have hesitated to disarm someone like Rahimi. And Marshall would easily dismiss a constitutional challenge to such a law in DC or the territories.
OTOH, it’s pretty clear that since Congress has no nationwide police power, this law is unconstitutional. But the reason why is important.
I agree that Congress should not have the power to regulate simple possession of anything absent an intent to transport or sell across state lines. The idea that physical articles have a “commerce nexus” sufficient to let Congress regulate them however it wants simply because they once traveled between states, is as absurd as the idea that Congress can regulate people however it wants as long as the feds can prove that at some time in their lives, they took or were taken on at least one interstate trip.
It’s a rediculous overextension of Wickard.
See my comment below on the statutory language.
If the framers were disbarring Rahmi like characters of their civil right to a gun, the post colonial evidence of states doing so must be numerous, no?
It's not, precisely because at that time domestic violence was no big deal, shrugged at at most.
Which, if you thought about it for three seconds would tell you that this history and tradition business is nonsensical.
Originalism is not at all nonsensical.
There are significant problems with some originalists today though:
It was generally understood, both in the 1790's and in the 1860's, that judicial review was for clear cases. A judge should be able to say that something is, in fact, unconsitutional. The doubtful case rule applied. Democratic process was the principal protection for rights; judicial review was a backup.
It was also the boast of English jurists (and well accepted by Americans) that the common law was so practical and flexible; never a suicide pact. And most of the Bill of Rights simply describes different parts of that law. None of it was written to yield a perverse result. Some of today's justices read the Bill of Rights as though it were a common statute. And they aren't natural-law jurists like those of the 18th and 19th centuries.
When they don't read something the way it was supposed to be read, we should be unsurprised we get bad results.
It's called a peace warrant. Dangerous people (who had done something, like making threats) could be made to find sureties. If no one was willing to be your surety, you get locked up.
If Texas wanted, they could do this with the proper procedure. If Texas can lock him up (naturally, he can't take his gun with him), it could certainly go halfway and only take his gun.
I suspect this case is the classic example of why a purely historical approach isn’t workable.
But the Court might well impose procedural safeguards, perhaps saying that in order to impose more than a self-dissolving temporary preliminary injunction, there has to be a court hearing and perhaps a heightened evidentiary burden.
To the extent domestic violence constitutes a modern analog to the sorts of things that historically resulted in permanent firearms prohibitions, the procedural safeguards also has to be similar, so that domestic violence cases that involve long-term firearms prohibitions have to be procedurally more like criminal cases than like purely ex parte civil ones.
Ex parte orders may not be the basis for a prosecution under 922(g)(8).
True, but they are still much easier to get than, say, a civil commitment order. That seems to be more or less what ReaderY is suggesting.
Here's a crazy suggestion: Deprivation of a right is a genuine harm, which can only constitutionally be justified as punishment for a crime duly convicted. So, only allow such injunctions if they're to be followed up by prosecution, and absent a conviction, the subject of the injunction is owed restitution. Not just restoration of the right, but genuine compensation for the time they were wrongfully deprived of it.
People are temporarily derived of rights of all kinds by various temporary orders all the time. You can jail people for 24 hours with only probable cause, an ex parte proceeding, and a warrant, and under exigent circumstances with less than that. Government doesn’t have to be right. It just has to have probable cause. Don’t like it, amend the constitution.
Given that the 4th Amendment by its text permits persons to be seized with only probable cause, with no conpensation if a person is later acquitted, why should firearms be elevated over the complete deprivation of personal liberty that a seizure of a person represents?
Except arrest is temporary. You are entitled to a bail hearing, and in most cases bail. And then a speedy trial.
These other things are more or less permanent.
Brett Bellmore’s comment was concerned with injunctions “followed by prosecution.” In other words, temporaty injunctions. The prosecution would decide the permanent disposition. That makes them similar to arrests, which are also temporary and “followed by prosecution,” which determines the permanent disposition.
I think it's fundamentally wrong that the legal system gets to impose costs on innocent people without compensation. That it does so a lot is just to say that it wrongs a lot of people.
If occasionally harming an innocent person is a cost of having a legal system, imposing that cost is akin to a taking, and needs compensation.
Not convicted is not the same as innocent, despite slogans to the contrary.
I note you don’t make an originalist argument here, only a moral one.
Not convicted is legally the same as innocent, though, and isn't the government supposed to act on the basis of law?
Yes, I don't believe that making people whole after failed prosecutions is constitutionally mandated. I just think it's the right thing to do.
No, it isn’t. For instance, evidence of previous acquittals are admissible.
So is testimony offered against the defendant in a trial where the defendant was acquitted.
Are we speaking the same language here?
The seizure is temporary. How long will the guns be seized for? 9 months while the judges whine about their long docket?
Here is what Jack Marshall, world-renowned legal ethicist, wrote.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.politics.guns/c/M2_XyIzbHUQ/m/ag6dtUtyAQAJ
Jack Marshall is a self-proclaimed ethicist and lawyer who understands neither ethics nor law. (To be clear, I am not saying that he’s not a lawyer; he’s not a good one, but he is a lawyer. I’m saying that he’s not an ethicist. He doesn’t have the first clue what the word even means. “Things that irritate me are unethical” is literally his thinking.)
So, for instance, when I say he doesn't understand law, the law at issue is not, in fact, based on what people "might do," but what they actually have done. To be sure, the law does not require proof of a crime, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt — and perhaps SCOTUS will say that such is required — but it is not based on speculation. It is based on proof based on a preponderance of the evidence.
I must wonder though.
Is it within Congress's constitutional authority to enact a law requiring these same people to wear a distinctive badge when out in public?
Or what about forbidding them from voting in elections?
Or forbidding them from practicing law or medicine?
I do believe a state could do all three for those convicted of domestic violence.
But could Congress do this for people who only have a restraining order against them?
That's more of a Commerce Clause issue than a 2d Amendment issue.
The statute (here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922)
forbids various people (including those subject to a restraining order, but also felons, illegal aliens and others)
This is Congress's attempt to bring this law within the Commerce Clause.
The key phrase is "possess in or affecting commerce." Which nowadays means, anywhere in the US, period. Many criticize this, but it is the law, currently. To change it, you would have to overturn decades of precedents going back to the 1930s.
And they ought to be overturned. That line of precedents are absurdly offensive, they've taken all the limits written into the commerce clause and effectively negated them.
That is law as magical incantation - we invoke the mysterious power of commerce!
Or Avada Ka Davra.
'I do believe a state could do all three for those convicted of domestic violence.'
Slippery slope there.
Marshall is a clingerverse-renowned legal ethicist, similar to Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Jeffrey Clark . . .
(Make that un-American sleazebag and Volokh Conspiracy dreamboy John Eastman.)
Which one of them committed perjury on a FISA warrant application, like your boy Kevin Clinesmith?
Trump’s own appointee not only signed the FISA application but also appointed Mueller. Lol
There must be a huge backlog of untreated adult ADD cases among Reason.com commenters. There are so, so many folks here who can't seem to stay on topic and go off on totally unrelated tangents.
Blackman says "Regrettably, Justice Kavanaugh has taken the mantle from Justice Kennedy as the chief mediator of the United States." Assuming that's true, what exactly is regrettable about it? There's a long history of SCOTUS justices moving towards the political center, away from the left or right extremes, over time. And after all, there many versions (variously attributed) of the aphorism, "Anyone who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart. Anyone who remains a socialist at 40 has no head."
We don't all have tunnel vision (we're not all lawyers).
I have regularly cautioned against being too quick to see animosity in ones political opponents. In years past, this has mostly consisted of a caution to liberal Justices and posters not to see conservative views and values as based on animosity.
I find myself now mostly giving this caution to conservatives about liberals.
The idea that gun control is a good policy has an obvious rational basis. Most Western democracies have it. A right to bear arms is a textual constitutional right. But it’s by no means clear that a broad right to bear arms is really implicit in the concept of ordered liberty such that it’s completely impossible to have a free or just society without it. And the contrary argument has long historical roots. Many serious thinkers and scholars believe it. After all, the United States has a far higher gun violence rate than most Western democracies. It’s at the very least plausible, rational, to argue that our liberal approach to gun possession has something to do with it. Moreover, current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence is recent and far from unanimous.
For this reason, it is completely inappropriate to attribute animosity to opponents of a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. As I have noted before about other matters, the lazy habit of simply asserting that those one disagrees with are acting out of hate, therefore one need not bother to discuss their arguments, has been with us at least since slaveholders were making this intellectually bankrupt claim about abolitionists in the early 19th century.
It is no more legitimate today than it was back then.
I agree that you don't have to be an aspiring dictator to think that the 2nd amendment is a bad idea from a policy standpoint, and that we'd be better off without it. I'll agree that far. I mean, obviously, I don't agree that it IS a bad idea, just that you can think that without wanting to be the next Stalin.
But I'm too familiar with contemporary sources and the history of the gun control movement to agree that their preferred 'interpretation' of the 2nd amendment is at all plausible. It's entirely the product of wishing for policy it forbids. We just happen to actually have a Constitution that doesn't align with 21st century 'progressive' policy preferences. It wasn't written by 21st century 'progressives', and it shows in all sorts of ways. It genuinely does not permit a lot of 21st century 'progressive' policies!
You really did not see the 'collective right' interpretation of the 2nd amendment show up until the early to mid 20th century, and that's because prior to that the 2nd amendment wasn't getting in anybody's way, and didn't need to be explained away. It wasn't incorporated against the states due to the post-Reconstruction Court's perfidy in Slaughterhouse, and the federal government wasn't terribly interested in going after guns until then, so it was mostly a non-issue.
It's not a non-issue anymore because it's finally been incorporated as it should have been back then, and because at least one major party is keen on infringing the right at every level of government it can.
So, what to do, then, if you think the 2nd amendment is a bad idea, but not enough people agree with you to make repealing it a feasible option? Well, you either give up, or you suborn judges into saying it means something that renders it moot, obviously. And that's what the left attempted, and the majority of the Court eventually rejected doing.
Now, here’s the thing about running a ‘progressive’ government under a decidedly non-‘progressive’ constitution. Sure, you can suborn judges into saying that A is B. You can find legislators willing to enact laws the Constitution facially prohibits. You can staff the bureaucracy with people comfortable with enforcing those laws anyway.
But you can’t actually make the gulf between the Constitution we have, and the Constitution you’re pretending we have, go away, without amendments. It’s still there, and it poisons things, because the people who are willing to read the Constitution we have, and say it is the Constitution you want, are NOT the same people who’d who, in an idea world, would be reading a Constitution that ACTUALLY said what you wanted, and saying it mean that. They’re, on a fundamental level, dishonest. Maybe well meaning, but they’re corruptly well meaning.
And that fundamental corruption is going to bleed through into everything they do.
You can have honest, ‘progressive’ government, if you have a ‘progressive’ constitution. (That's Europe.) But if you insist on having a ‘progressive’ government despite having a constitution that decidedly is NOT progressive, it IS going to be a corrupt government, and not just corrupt in the sense of not following the Constitution. It’s going to be corrupt in all the ways you don’t like, too.
Because that’s the sort of people you had to staff it with, to get what you wanted: Corrupt people.
That, by the way, is why I think we desperately need a constitutional convention. We can't go on this way, having a government that's living a lie.
We need to settle this whole thing, one way or the other. Either enforce the Constitution we have, or replace it with a different one that gets enforced, but we need to end the lie. It's killing us, in terms of political culture, because it makes it utterly unavoidable that we are governed by liars.
I agree. If it isn't resolved by convention, it'll get resolved with bloodshed. That's how these things always go.
*fingers crossed*
All-talk, powerless, right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war roadkill . . . And the target audience of a bunch of disaffected, ready-for-replacement, bigot-hugging conservative law professors.
I'm sure Sotomayor has eaten more rice and beans than I ever have.
Queen almathea 21 hours ago
Jackson and Sotomayer have accomplished far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, more than this angry dope or his progeny will ever. For some lesser people this invokes the kind of bigoted anger you see here."
Queen - I presume you mean the bigoted anger she displayed in Shuette and Ricci.
These bigots are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your employers regret hiring you and wish you would depart.
How is this an incel lament?
“No one mentions this, but women are attracted to these “bad boy” boyfriends because of the power of having a boyfriend that everyone else is afraid of, presuming that he won’t turn on them.”
The belief that women like a certain “bad boy” stereotype is central to the incel ideology such as it exists. While they’ve gotten more openly hateful a lot of discourse was about women wanting “bad boys” and not “nice guys.” These “nice guys” of course weren’t very nice in reality which is how this banal and unsupported observation about women
morphed into a hateful misogynistic online community that has led to real world violence.
Yeah, I think it's silly to say she's stupid. You hardly ever encounter anybody who's actually stupid and prominent, and you wouldn't expect a Supreme court justice to be the exception.
I think it would be better to say that Democrats have a very different conception of what Justices are supposed to be doing than Republicans do, and she's not even trying to pretend she's living up to the Republican conception of her role.
I think it's silly to pretend that at least some women aren't attracted to 'bad boys'. "Sweet dreams are made of this", as the song says.
The trope of women liking bad boys is as old as time.
"These “nice guys” of course weren’t very nice in reality which is how this banal and unsupported observation about women
morphed into a hateful misogynistic online community that has led to real world violence."
That is asinine.
You all believe it.
Doesn’t mean it’s true.
'She was asking for it' was supposed to have been disposed of as a legal or even ethical touchstone by now. Guess not.
LawTalkingGuy 21 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“No one mentions this, but women are attracted to these “bad boy” boyfriends because of the power of having a boyfriend that everyone else is afraid of, presuming that he won’t turn on them.”
That is actually true in a high percent of Domestic violence couples, probably 2/3. For some unexplained reason, a small subset of females are attracted to those jealous / abusive boyfriends. That in now way justifies the abuse inflicted.
She may not be stupid relative to the average American, but it's very clear to me that she's intellectually mediocre compared to the whites she presumably graduated with who had to get in on their own merit.
The difference between "mediocre" and "laser focused on doing X" can sometimes be hard to perceive to a devotee of doing Y.
Was she the most brilliant jurist they could find? Eh, likely not after excluding conservatively 95% of the bench from consideration on the basis of color, sex, and ideology. "Oft evil will mar evil"; They really handicap themselves by insisting that their nominees be left wing AND minorities on multiple counts, when they could get stronger nominees if they just insisted that they be left wing.
But it's still silly to use the term "stupid" to describe her.
It also happens to be correct.
It’s almost as though there are lots of suitable candidates, so one can use a second set of criteria. Especially since it’s pretty hard to predict how someone will be as a Justice after a certain level of competence is met.
Yeah, yeah, those grapes are really sour, so no point in climbing to get them.
Sarcastr0, it's just common sense that if you exclude 95% of the candidate pool on a criteria totally unrelated to merit, like checking them against a Pantone chart, your odds of getting the best candidate decline substantially. This "There's no difference once you clear the minimum qualifications" stupidity is just a defense mechanism to avoid admitting that there are costs to picking people on the basis of race and sex.
"If you have an applicant pool of a thousand people all equally qualified"
Start with false premises, end with false conclusions.
Attending "all the right schools" means nothing if you're a black or hispanic. A black at Harvard probably belongs at Cardozo at best.
Queen almathea 4 hours ago
It’s not false. Look at Sotomayer or Jacksons qualifications, they are as good as any white guy out there.
Queen - if that was true, then they wouldnt get so many facts wrong in their opinions,
Nor would they believe a few hundred thousand children were dying of covid here in the US
Nor would have someone that couldnt tell the difference between a male and female.
Indeed it was. He admitted that, much as he disliked the 2nd amendment, the pro-gun interpretation was entirely plausible, and perhaps would eventually prevail. As it did.
Sandy has actually quite soured on the Constitution, due to his belief that it can't honestly be squared with his policy preferences.
Nah, that's just motivated reasoning. If you'd only get a meaning out of something "if you want" to get it? That's the very definition of motivated reasoning.
Nobody who didn't give a damn what the meaning was, just wanted to know in a spirit of academic interest, would ever come up with something like "collective rights", that's not a 17th century idea, that's a 20th century concept.
So they meant "the state" when they wrote "the people" in the Second Amendment, but had figured out the difference by the time they got to the Tenth?
AFAIK there are no documented cases of sexual transmission of HIV between cisgender females. A trans woman with a penis would pose a similar risk as a cisgender male for sexual transmission.
There are of course also non-sexual ways to transmit HIV as well, such as congenital transmission and sharing needles.
Sandy and I came to favoring a constitutional convention from opposite directions: He's a progressive who's just too honest to pretend the Constitution currently means anything he finds acceptable. So he wants a chance to modernize it, thinking that a more 'progressive' version would actually be popular.
I'm a conservative libertarian who likes most of the Constitution just fine, but can't bring myself to believe there's any plausible path back to enforcing it as written. And the costs of having this sustained conflict between the Constitution as written, and as 'interpreted' is so high, we'd be better off losing some of the features I like, if that were the cost of getting what emerged honestly interpreted.
Do you understand the difference between, "You shouldn't have walked into that dark alley waving a bankroll." and "Mugging is OK."?
Do all domestic abusers are nice guys?