But don’t you sometimes have to look at the effects of a law to see if constitutional rights are being infringed? If a law mandated that all bullets must be made from solid platinum wouldn’t you be annoyed if the Supremes drily noted that it doesn’t infringe on gun ownership?
I actually specifically thought of Loving when composing the last post. I agree with Warren when he said:
The right to choose whom to marry is an individual right that cannot be subverted by the government. I consider the holding in Loving to be consistent with the overall philosophy I described as it falls under the auspices of individual rights.
The 2nd amendment is an individual right that couldn’t [shouldn’t] be legislated away as you suggest. As for the effects of a law - the first thing that comes to mind is disparate impact analysis in equal protection claims. I am opposed to this type of analysis as a basis for equal protection jurisprudence. I haven’t yet seen a case where disparate impact analysis was performed that I found compelling.
And they are already voting for Republicans anyway, so no votes lost. Moderates and even conservatives are not all that fond of Citizen’s United. Campaigning on getting it overturned siphons votes that they might not otherwise get.
The Court hearing oral arguments without Scalia is a beautiful thing already, even without a new Democratic appointee to replace him.
Please note, anyone who likes to dismiss Clinton and Obama as “center right” or worse, that the four people holding the line on these crucial Fourth Amendment protections, preventing us from becoming a stop-and-search police state, were all appointed by those two presidents.
It was routinely subverted for most of this nation’s history, so I wouldn’t put much faith in that “cannot.” Most of the pre-Loving jurisprudence on marriage rights (and even quite a bit later, up through Obergefell) explicitly did NOT see an individual right to choose whom to marry. The word ‘marriage’ does not occur in the Constitution.
…
Anyone think that if there is a Obama/Senate standoff, that Roberts steps in and makes a statement? He’s been very clear that he doesn’t like the Supreme Court being viewed as an arm of the political parties.
Won’t matter. The GOP voters already consider him a traitor to the cause. Sandoval too, for that matter.
(post shortened)
I’ll suggest that the Mark Joseph Stern’s article is entertaining, biased, and amusing horseshit.
The oral arguments phase of the SCOTUS judicial proceeding is not just another forum for lawyers to rehash the merits of the case but for answering any questions that the Justices may have developed while reading and discussing the briefs related to the case. Those include the original trial documents, the appellant court documents, amicus curiae “friend of the court” briefs, and court decisions on any related cases.
The comments made by the Justices and the lawyers during these oral arguments is not a true indication of how the Justices will eventually rule. They’re mostly to provide clarification and aid in the drafting of opinions. More questions and answers will be discussed in the closed chambers of the Justices’ Conference. That’s why it’s proven to be so difficult for anyone to predict how the Supremes will rule.
To what purpose? If Roberts is clear that he doesn’t like the Supremes being viewed as a political arm, why would he voluntarily step into what is a purely political cat fight?
Jeez, they just learned Sandoval’s name, like, three hours ago.
Unless they’re 2nd Amendment supporters and object to gun banners and their justices. I wonder which issues will draw the most voters?
The Pubbies have been playing the Second Amendment card for DECADES. It is not gonna get them any voters they don’t already have, and with Bernie as the Presidential candidate, it wouldn’t be nearly as effective as it HaS been, because Bernie is not a gun grabber and everyone knows it. So … not buying it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Exqueeze me, but I couldn’t help it. Citizens United is the decisions that opened the floodgates on wealthy special interest comtributions to political campaign, ensuring that the big money boys would control economic policy forever and ever, amen, especially at the state and Congressional level. it lies at the root of every piece of economic policy offered by the Republicans and their DLC frenemies.
Why are you so sure that persuadable voters are so easily brainwashed by 30 second ads? Isn’t Jeb Bush a clear counterexample?
Well, maybe the writing was on the [del]gun[/del] wall…
?
Is this about citizens united?
Why are you so sure that brainwashed voters aren’t so easily persuadable by 60 second ads?
Lots of reasons. First of all, many people skip ads these days. Secondly, I think people have gotten more and more jaded about ads. Thirdly, they have a lot of other sources of information about high-profile political races. If it’s a race for county assessor, and one guy spends $100,000 and the other one spends $300, that’s probably insurmountable. But when you’re getting a lot of free media coverage, I don’t think you’re doing much more than bouncing the rubble with all that super PAC money. And the results speak for themselves. Jeb Bush flamed out. Newt Gingrich didn’t get there. Rick Santorum was unable to obtain the nomination. Many of the candidates Karl Rove and the Koch brothers have backed have lost.
If Sandoval does indeed end up being the guy, confirm him. Yesterday.
Yeah. It took a couple of cycles and the american people have figured out that it is all nonsense. I think that’s what Trump and Sanders are both benefiting from.
There is a bigger wider issue though on what TV news networks have done to our political intelligence. Citizens United is not benign. It is part of the decadence and the cynicism.