As it should be, this is a 9-0 win. I expected the win. I am a little surprised it is 9-0. I am hugely surprised that it is written by Kagan with a concurring opinion by Jackson!
- Supreme Court sides with US gunmakers in case centered on Mexican cartel violence
- Supreme Court blocks Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers over cartel violence | PBS News
- Supreme Court Kills Mexico’s $10 Billion Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers
- Supreme Court Blocks Mexico’s Suit Against U.S. Gun Makers – The New York Times
- Supreme Court blocks Mexico’s lawsuit against major U.S. gunmakers in win for firearms industry – CBS News
- Supreme Court throws out Mexico’s lawsuit against US gun industry
This was an attempt by Mexico to impose their highly-restrictive gun laws on U.S.-based manufacturers via lawfare, using their own inability or unwillingness to enforce their laws on their own people as justification.
Anything but a 9-0 decision would have been a travesty of law and common sense. Among other things, Mexico has no standing to sue in the U.S. courts, especially since the “harm” they want remedied is their own doing. (The Mexican government has the authority and duty to shut down the cartels, good and hard, but they allowed the cartels and internal corruption to get bigger than they can handle. None of that is our problem, nor will it be fixed by forcing U.S. companies to abide by Mexican laws.)
I am happy to see that it was unanimous, and Kagan writing the opinion and Jackson concurring were pleasant surprises. But I maintain that it was the only correct outcome.
Just like in the Heller opinions and dissents: the Court split 5-4 on whether a state or jurisdiction can ban a class of firearms — handguns, in that case — but on the question of whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right or a collective right tied to militia service, there was no dispute: they were unanimous, 9-0, that 2A protects an individual right. Even the dissenting opinions acknowledge that point.
I am still inclined to read the decision very closely to see if there is anything in it that will come back to sting the Second Amendment supporters.
Maybe they are trying to get off so many lists.
I was thinking something similar this morning when reading the articles.
I’m not surprised that the suit got thrown out – I am surprised that it was unanimous.
I am also disappointed it got this far: this should have been dismissed in District Court.
Unfortunately, I expect the manufacturers involved won’t be able to recoup costs from Mexico…
I like the German system where the loser in a lawsuit pays, even if they were the one who brought it. It cuts down on frivolous lawsuits.
The district court did reject it! The appeals court revived it.
To SCOTUS: Good job with Mexico, guys. Now do Democrats.
It wasn’t 9-0 because they wanted to. It was 9-0 because of what it would mean in future cases involving the liberal’s oxen.
If Mexico could kill an American industry? What would they have to allow China to do to a tech company?
With international trade being what it is? A precedence set like that could kill a whole host of industries the communists love.
Especially a precedence in which no American law was violated or even involved.
If it would have been a clear-cut path to just get rid of the gun industry? It would probably have been 5-4, F-you flyover country.
It’s insane to think government—-tyrants will protect our rights.
That’s why our forefather didn’t tell the government that they were to protect everything wrote in the bill of rights.
They told them they weren’t allowed to violate them.
They knew the government was always going to be the true enemy. But it was necessary to hold off invasions from other countries/enemies.
Government is an exercise in “the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Sometimes.” That we have to bribe to keep them from killing us.
And without a gun to they’re head they will turn on you every time.
As citizens we need to embrace the power of BFYTW, on gun rights.
And stand up to every bully/tyrant that presents themselves.
No matter what authoritah they’re wearing.
This ruling is NOT about guns and the court is NOT pro 2A. This ruling is about protecting American businesses from foreign actors seeking to bankrupt them. The court is looking out for the business interests of powerful companies…NOT just “gun makers”.
From MTHead (above):
“It wasn’t 9-0 because they wanted to. It was 9-0 because of what it would mean in future cases involving the liberal’s oxen.
If Mexico could kill an American industry? What would they have to allow China to do to a tech company?”
And from Dan (above):
“This ruling is NOT about guns and the court is NOT pro 2A. This ruling is about protecting American businesses from foreign actors seeking to bankrupt them.”
This case was a direct attack on American sovereignity; had it gone any other way, especially anything other than 9-0, the public furor – and the accompanying political fallout – against the court system, given the currrent rampant overreach of District courts, would have been overwhelming.
Consider it not “proper court jurisprudence” but instead a Le Petomane exercise in “protecting our phone-balony jobs.”
Were our federal court system aligned with “America” this case would have been so thoroughly quashed immediately upon filing at the District level that any and all superior courts could have simply said “yep, us, too” and cited the District court’s response.
Alas, such is not the case, which does not bode well for The Republic.
Le Petomane.
Mea culpa. I’ll take the hit on this one – I should have written “Governor Lepetomane” and gotten the Blazing Saddles spelling correct – to more clearly identify to which similarly-named individual I was referring.
Although, reading the Wikipedia entry you linked, I think I see why Mel Brooks used that particular name for his character.
My first thought was to the vaudeville performer, too, but when you explained the reference I knew immediately.
Wikipedia calls that “Disambiguation.”
Sometimes, though, I think I meet the definition of an over educated intellectual; Someone who hears the music for the Lone Ranger and thinks of the William Tell Overture.