Quote of the day—Matthew Rice

As the Supreme Court assesses the emergency brief, it is increasingly likely that Second Amendment jurisprudence will take center stage in this term.

Matthew Rice
December 27, 2022
Gun Rights Advocates Seek Supreme Court Intervention to Block New York Restrictions
[Since Heller was nearly 15 years ago, I expect SCOTUS will be hearing appellate court rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment for at least another 15 years.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Matthew Rice

  1. Great! The courts should be making lawyers and politicians choke on “Shall not be infringed”.
    You can hear the NPC’s screaming already. It can’t be that simple! It just can’t!
    But it is. Poor dar’lins, it’s never easy when one’s pet dies.

  2. I have a bad feeling about this.

    It looks like the courts are beginning to actually honor the 2nd Amm., yet they are absolutely refusing to even look at the evidence concerning elections. The Supreme Court even refused to hear evidence in a case between states, where they are the court of original jurisdiction, and, as one dissenting justice wrote, are *obligated* to hear the case, as no other court can.

    I strongly suspect these people are being blackmailed. That they are in their respective positions *because* they are blackmailable. They are being told not to touch elections, but allowed to rule on the 2A to give the opposition a sense of winning: The courts are comming to save us, so we don’t have to do anything ourselves. None of it matters without elections. There are no elections.

    • Your hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.

      I’m not yet convinced the elections are a sham, but I’m far from convinced they are honest.

      • Even had 2020 been completely honest which is was far from true, it still would have been an illegitimate election because the Constitution states that election rules are set by the state legislatures. In 2020, governors, state and local election officials, state courts, public health officials and who knows who else illegally changed the rules. This was the basis for the TX lawsuit which the Supremes refused to consider.

  3. Another point is that the results of [s]elections are more immediate. The [s]elected can pass unconstitutional laws that take near immediate effect. The courts then take years to decide the issue, while the [s]elected can just pass more unconstitutional laws. The courts cannot actually solve this problem. (“they’ve made their ruling, now let them enforce it”)

  4. I should also mention that I once had a lengthy conversation with a couple of state election officials in a cafe in orofino, awhile back, and they did convince me that most of the elections in Idaho are largely legit. They claimed that computers are used in tabulators only, and written ballots are the rule. I do believe the tabulators can manipulate, but I do not know that they actually do, in Idaho, so far. I think Idaho elections are mostly run by honest people, who are looking for corruption…. so far.

    Don’t use Idaho as a measure for what’s happening in Wa, Or, Az, NY, Ca, etc.

  5. What the left wants is for the SCOTUS to drag their feet on the issue as long as possible till Justice Thomas dies or retires and can be replaced with a flaming leftist. We will NEVER see another conservative justice appointed to the court because we will NEVER see another GOP POTUS. Once the left control the Court they will then rule to destroy the Second Amendment. It’s ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. Precedents be damned. Count on it.

Comments are closed.