U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights cases

[internet troll]

I am not blaming the president he can only appoint them, they have to have the balls to do whats right after that.

And that is part of the importance of another term for Trump. Right now on Paper it looks like if a gun rights case comes up and the Constitution is followed, it would be 5-4 in favor. But with Roberts it*s not a guarantee anymore. I can easily see him siding with left side of the court on firearm matters.

Heck, if I am one of the 9 and respect the Constitution, but did not think the votes were there to uphold the spirit of the 2nd because of Roberts, I would probably vote not to hear the case because I don*t want precedent to be set. It would look bad for me but in the end I would have respect for the 2nd in mind.

I am hoping that it does not become a trend for people to say *see, Trump appointed 2 Supreme Court judges and the 2nd got nothing from it so there goes the vote for Trump because of the Supreme Court argument*. I can easily see that becoming a counter when people say that you should vote *Trump* because of the Supreme Court.

I*ve read a lot of people on line trashing Trump trying to get people not to vote for him or thinking it*s futile to vote for him. *Mostly other sites*. He is far from perfect (Including on the 2nd) but still heads and shoulders above Biden or any other national democrat who seem to be embracing the destruction of the 2nd.

[God's Country]

Trump needs to win strictly to give the libs four more years to go over a cliff. I have zero faith in him as a president, a supporter of the constitution, or on any matter whatsoever other than his ability to piss off the left and deep state. Maybe four more years will reveal such undeniable entrenched DC evil, that all but the dumbest voter will finally see where we're heading. Trump won't be able to do shit about it.
but maybe that will be enough. That's about all I can count on. And right now that's as good as it gets.....sadly.

After that good luck to us all. We're all on our own.

[Hodgie]

Trump needs to win strictly to give the libs four more years to go over a cliff. I have zero faith in him as a president, a supporter of the constitution, or on any matter whatsoever other than his ability to piss off the left and deep state. Maybe four more years will reveal such undeniable entrenched DC evil, that all but the dumbest voter will finally see where we're heading. Trump won't be able to do shit about it.
but maybe that will be enough. That's about all I can count on. And right now that's as good as it gets.....sadly.

After that good luck to us all. We're all on our own.

Unfortunately I think you are right.

[prospero1919]

Cowards abound

[ItchyTick]

It could have been much worse all of you glass is half empties.

[Square Bag]

Once you get rid of Ginsburg whom should have seen the light and that traitor fuck Roberts we'll be back in business!

[Twospot]

This is all Roberts. The commie's must have some dirt on him. Without him being a Conservative we're still short on the bench.

[father-of-five]

It only takes one swing vote. We need more.

Roberts is a jellyfish, swayed by the leftist mob.

Yes. Getting Trump re-elected is the best way to make that either a 6 to 3 majority or a 5 to 3 majority with a side order of Roberts "waffle" fries.

[c45man]

With judicial activists on the Supreme Court one could never depend on them to protect and uphold the constitution. If the subject doesnt fit their narrative, don't expect a literal translation of the constitution.

With that said, there are still state constitutions for what that is worth.

This fight is not over...elections have consequences.

[ArcticSplash]

I see all of you seized in SCOTUS distaste after the ruling on gay and trans people.

Where was the lobbying when Democrats fundraised like mad to yield a state Supreme Court that only has a token Republican (Saylor, who is about to retire) and a rookie (Mundy)? I didn't see much excitement here about GOTV to stop the D takeover of SCOPA.



You guys gotta stop looking at Ds and Rs after names when it comes to the judicial bench. SCOTUS judges get to serve for life to become free of party affiliation. Ronald Reagan put on what he thought was a libertarian judge (Souter) who wound up instead being the swing vote in plenty of liberal decisions. Sandra Day O'Connor (another Republican appointee) single-handedly saved abortion but she moved away from her normal constructionist views and became libertarian-for-a-day.

Justice Scalia gained a reputation of being far more aggressively libertarian (and hence a judge 2nd Amendment advocates adored) because of his libertarian views. Justice Thomas basically considered Scalia as his mentor and now it's Justice Thomas who is the only 2A advocate on the court.


Justice Gorsuch's decision today on the gay/trans discrimination decision did it from a basis of libertarian interpretation of equal protection. Don't believe me? The ruling is here to read:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ko44kkojan...20%29.pdf?dl=0


The county employer who fired the gay employee would not have fired him had he not participated in a gay softball league. It was photos of him participating in gay softball that caused his employer to fire him. Is this discrimination on the basis of sex?

Well: SCOTUS already ruled before in Price Waterhouse that firing an employee because she was "too macho" and wore pants instead of dresses reached Title 7 protection. Similarly, if you're firing a gay person on the basis of what you expect a man to be, that's sex discrimination.*



Religious/ecclesiastical employment is STILL exempt from discrimination claims so a gay guy trying to sue a church because they won't make him a deacon won't get far.