What to do to Get the 9th Circuit on the Second Amendment Track?

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

So, what to do? I have a suggestion. The Supreme Court should consider summarily reversing some of our wayward Second Amendment decisions. To put it more colloquially, it’s time for some benchslaps. Nothing less will give this court any pause before ultimately blessing every arms restriction it reviews.

Lawrence VanDyke
Circuit Judge
9th Circuit Court
July 16, 2026
Knife Rights v. Bonta

See also: ‘Time for some benchslaps’: Trump-appointed judge on 9th Circuit asks SCOTUS to summarily reverse his colleagues on the Second Amendment

I like the translation he gives for the meaning of a benchslap.

These sterile descriptions, while accurate, don’t fully capture the stinging impact of a summary reversal. When the Supreme Court summarily reverses, it’s essentially sending a clear (if harsh) message to a lower court:

Dear lower court:

Your decision sucks…. And it sucks so badly, it isn’t even worth a closer look.

Kindly re-do it.

Regards,

The Supreme Court

This is language in a Federal Appeals Court decision I never expected to see in my lifetime.

It also surprises me that he has a civil engineering degree and grew up in Bozeman Montana.

Share

6 thoughts on “What to do to Get the 9th Circuit on the Second Amendment Track?”

  1. Benchslaps are the only solution available to us. There need to be a lot of them and not just on gun law. But Roberts and his mini-me are weak and content to let lower courts continue their insurrection.

    • No, impeachment and removal are also a thing. A hard-to-do-right-now thing, to be sure. But they absolutely would work. “You got overturned a LOT? OK, clearly you don’t understand the law, which is your one job. YOU are voted ‘off the island.'”

      • But if it had to happen twice,
        I favor tar and feathers
        (And rails),
        Which are also nice,
        And would suffice.

  2. SCOTUS could decide that certain appeals court judges are not exhibiting “good behaviour” and thus may no longer “serve during”.

    The phrasing is in the Constitution, the legislature has never codified it in order to regularize its meaning and implementation, and SCOTUS is the one that (has arrogated to itself the power to) decide what the phrasing in the Constitution means.

    Not following SCOTUS orders and precedent would seem to be a lack of “good behavior”. That would include malicious ‘compliance’ and the modern leftist practice of deliberately malunderstanding things.

    Impeachment is Congresses’s thing; SCOTUS can’t remove from office. What they can do is order specific judges to have nothing to do. They get paid, still have the normal restrictions on their behavior of working judges, still have the title, just can’t work any cases or have any votes. Maybe it’s restricted by topic, including whether a case involves their banned topic since so many of these poltroons think the 2A (just to pick a random topic) doesn’t cover anything.

    And SCOTUS should be liable to impeachment for their abuse of this power. Assuming Congress is willing to stop their restraining policy of MAD and actually do its job of pruning injudicious justices.

  3. Does ANYONE actually believe the commie judges infesting the bench at every level in multiple jurisdictions REALLY give a red rats ass what the SCOTUS says or rules? Because they don’t. These judges do NOT believe in the Constitution and certainly have NO intentions on upholding it. The nasty, ugly reality is that there exists only one solution to the problems we face including the problem of leftist activist judges seeking to destroy America via judicial fiat…and that solution involves miles of rope and countless trees. Because as long as a leftist is allowed to continue stealing oxygen they WILL continue to try and destroy our freedom.

Comments are closed.