Like Watching a Racial Desegregation Case

Quote of the Day

I just listened to the California “Assault Weapon” ban oral argument before the Ninth Circuit in Miller v. Bonta. I will do extremely detailed breakdown of the argument later. In short, 2A will NOT win with this panel.

The questions and comments from the two liberal judges Berzon and Nguyen were unimpressive. Judge Berzon called AR-15s “A-15s” (seriously).

Based on today’s argument and the efforts by the two liberal judges to avoid applying Heller/Bruen, I now understand what it was like watching a court argument in 1950s Alabama/Mississippi over racial desegregation where intellectually dishonest, results-oriented judges worked overtime to avoid the obvious, legally-compelled outcome based upon clear, binding US Supreme Court precedent.

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar @fourboxesdiner
Posted on X January 24, 2024

And, no surprise, it was the same political party deliberately infringing upon the rights of people in both instances. There is an reason they are called the evil party.


4 thoughts on “Like Watching a Racial Desegregation Case

  1. “Intellectually dishonest, result-oriented judges” — what a great description for Justice Taney. He’s the one that held, in Dred Scott, that it was necessary to find the black man isn’t a citizen because otherwise he’d have the right to keep and bear arms.

    That of course makes Dred Scott an interesting, and ironic, case to cite in favor of RKBA.

    • Dred Scott is interesting for more than one reason. I just commented elsewhere that Roberts is the modern version of Taney regarding the emigration case that TX is now ignoring. Not to mention the election cases of 2020.

      It is also relevant to the recent kerfuffle about Haley’s non-comment about slavery being THE cause of CW1. While I am not a fan of hers, she was correct in this case before she waffled. It is fair to say slavery was the cause of secession with Dred Scott and the Northern nullification of it playing a significant part but secession did not have to lead to war. It was the attempt to suppress secession by force that led to the war.

  2. I suppose there is utility in having a Circuit that is so wrong, so consistently, that it guarantees SCOTUS will take the case up and rule the other way.

    Congress is pretty lazy, bereft of principle and standard, and there’s too much “comity” where the good-ol’-boys of DC scrub each others’ backs, to have the integrity to review the decisions and dissents of judges reviewed for alignment with Constitutional principles and norms.

    Judges aren’t supposed to be lifetime sinecures. Their appointment is for life with good behavior. Congress as a whole just doesn’t have the intellectual stature to enforce the required good behavior.

    Instead, if they ever remove a judge for fundamentally flawed constitutional reasoning, as written in a decision/dissent, the other major party would look for an opportunity to count coup if they could get the votes. So we get to suffer under this Harvard-entrance-process situation because the major parties are staring at each other with MAD in their eyes.

  3. Interesting. As were about to get a big lesson in both assault weapons possession, and race relations. (Guess who is being used to invade us.)
    Especially in light of the last post about BLM getting a 10 million dollar bump for the up coming Trump/white supremist/their killing democracy, campaign.
    Clownwars, begun they have. Ninth circuit? Ninth circus! And after the bitches at SCOTUS refused to stand up for Texas? Ain’t no court coming to save us.
    All we got left is what we always had. And what our forefathers had in spades. BFYTW. Don’t know nothing about no stinking government!

Comments are closed.