SCOTUS has been dodging the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies beyond the home ever since the 7th Circuit in 2012 said it did in 2012. Since then, the circuits have split, and today's CA9 decision deepens that split, at least over open carry:…
Kavanaugh, who as a DC Cir judge argued MD's assault weapons ban violated 2A, voted to hear a challenge to NYC's gun rules right after he joined SCOTUS. That case mooted out. Q now is whether he or Barrett would be the 4th vote to hear the new case right after 2 mass shootings.
I don't think they'll shy away. Why? Read the QP to SCOTUS by the challengers to NY's law. For gun rights supporters, the 2A is a tool to stop mass shooters in real time, not an invitation to a vigilante shootout that leaves even more dead.…
The only question for me is when, exactly, SCOTUS will announce they've taken the case. I don't think they'll do so after this week's conference. But that's normal. They tend to relist the big cases. But will they do interminable relists like the Mississippi abortion case?
Today's en banc CA9 ruling upholds CA's open carry laws, and CA9 in the past has already upheld CA's concealed carry laws.

The pending SCOTUS petition arises out of NY's concealed carry rules, but the QP is broad enough to emcompass states' open and concealed carry laws.
Woops I mean DC's assault weapons ban (here's that decision, with Kavanaugh's dissent) :…)
Meanwhile dude who signed the Torture Memos is now a RINO for going full originalist

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Mike Sacks

Mike Sacks Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MikeSacksEsq

8 Mar
Every once in a SCOTUS justice picks one of their side's ideological issues over another, sometimes--but not always--to the benefit of the opposite side's preferred result.

Here's what the six conservative justices put at the top of their lists:
Roberts, with rare exception, puts his standing hawkishness over his substantive agenda. Proof: his first-ever solo dissent today was against an Evangelical Christian college student arguing a free speech violation; his vote in the Prop 8 case to the benefit of SSM in CA.
(Top of my head, Roberts rare exception assuming standing when he otherwise may not have: the Fisher affirmative action cases)
Read 12 tweets
21 Feb
The district court judge at the center of this story is 54. That alone means she’s not going to be a SCOTUS nominee, no matter what else she has going for her.
Influential members of Congress can pitch their preferred names all day long but sitting right by POTUS is a VPOTUS from a state where its highest court houses a 44yo black female justice who cut her teeth in the US Solicitor General’s office after clerking for Justice Stevens
And while Breyer could pull a Kennedy and put his thumb on the scales for his own former clerk, I think KBJ is more likely to get elevated to Garland or Tatel’s seat on the DC Cir than skip straight to SCOTUS
Read 7 tweets
13 Feb
Seems to me if nothing’s gonna get you the votes to convict, might as well get it over with and have Committees call witnesses as part of 1/6 investigation so Senate can pass COVID relief on schedule, then quickly get GOP to block voting rights bill to prompt filibuster nuke.
The trial was about seeing the impeachment process through to its finish. The evidence already presented was overwhelming. Most Republicans had already committed to “doesn’t matter, trial’s unconstitutional” as failsafe escape. Witnesses wouldn’t change that.
If the point is accountability, committee hearings can do that. Especially if they’re to factfind for the purposes of, say, a 14th Amendment Section 3 resolution against Trump, which would only require a majority vote:
Read 5 tweets
12 Feb
Note that this case only exists bc people got mad when SCOTUS OK’d execution of a Muslim without an imam by his side in a state that only provided Christian pastors so SCOTUS stopped a state with similar rules from executing a Buddhist, and so those states just barred all clergy
Read 9 tweets
10 Feb
Ambitious Senators' greatest refuge is also their worst fear: no one will ever remember them or what they do unless they become President.
And should they become President, no one will ever remember what they said or did as Senators.
All's to say: how any Senator votes on this impeachment trial won't haunt their historical record because, well, history will forget them. Instead, they will vote based on present political considerations and/or personal sense of right and wrong.
Read 4 tweets
7 Jan
Yeah, but it’s been a constant presence there one way or another since, say, 1877
This , for instance, only just came down
And down in the crypt the President of the Confederacy still stands
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!