This write up gets it wrong. The Second Amendment wasn’t at issue or implicated in this case. This is the case where Garland (by joining another judge, who wrote the decision) deferred to the DOJ’s interpretation of a statutory provision on when the government destroys records after a gun sale.
The statute wasn’t being challenged as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. No one was arguing the Second Amendment requires the statute has to be read a certain way (it doesn’t work like that).
What the judges did here was engage is a kind of judicial restraint - when a law or regulation is ambiguous, the judiciary defers to agency tasked with executing the law or regulation (unless their interpretation is beyond the pale of the language). That’s a practice associated with judicial conservatism (ask Scalia). Here, they said the DOJ’s interpretation would not be disturbed.
What the authors of this article are suggesting and wanting is judicial activism - making the case about the “spirit” of the Second Amendment, reading the statute with an eye to helping out gun owners, even though that is irrelevant and the meaning of the statute has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Conservatives generally don’t like this approach, because what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if judges in the right start importing their preferences into the outcomes of cases when the law doesn’t require it, then you can’t argue against left wing judges who do the same when it is their turn, and courts just become another political battlefield with no pretense of even-handed justice.
Like the criminal sentencing case, this case is about something other than taking an anti-gun position against gun owners.
For anyone who read through that nonsense, I think it’s apparant who it is worth actually discussing things with compared to who to disagree with if you want an internet food fight.
Plus 10 for “poltroon” and plus 100 for those last two lines.
This thread turned into a hybrid supermassacre built of Gronkspikes, Lionel Messi nutmegging defenders, and LeBron James blocking Iggy in game 7 last month.
I think we have a better than 50/50 chance that he would appoint someone more conservative than Hillary. If only in his own best interest. But, no gamble with the Pants Suit she will appoint a lefty.
(And TB will defend that lefty with his last breath)
Reagan was 68 when elected the first time and served for two terms. I doubt anyone who serves as POTUS wants to quit after four years. Of course LBJ did it in 1968 but he had an abysmal record in Viet Nam and was either mentally shot, or was well aware he could not win reelection. Trump on the other hand should he win will no doubt try for a second term his ego is too large not to.