SCOTUSBlog is a good resource for people following supreme court cases. Even before cert. is granted.

Unfortunately that doesn’t mean that they always present good articles.

After researching and writing my previous article I found a link to this article:
Cherry-picked history and ideology-driven outcomes: Bruen’s originalist distortions

The author argues from a position of authority. His article is full of statements given as fact that are just opinion.

The majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen invokes the authority of history but presents a version of the past that is little more than an ideological fantasy, much of it invented by gun-rights advocates and their libertarian allies in the legal academy with the express purpose of bolstering litigation such as Bruen. Rather than applying a history, text, and tradition approach, it would be more accurate to characterize Justice Clarence Thomas’ decision as an illustration of the current Supreme Court’s new interpretive model: “Fiction, Fantasy, and Mythology.” Indeed, the distortion of the historical record, misreading of evidence, and dismissal of facts that don’t fit the gun-rights narrative favored by Thomas are genuinely breathtaking in scope. Thomas has taken law-office history to a new low, even for the Supreme Court, a body whose special brand of “law chambers history” has prompted multiple critiques and been a source of amusement for generations of scholars and court watchers.

Then we get to his supporting arguments.

There were a lot of gun control infringements passed after the civil war and Thomas just ignored those. They were at the time of the passing of the 14th amendment and should count just as much as when the second was adopted in 1791.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many of these infringers go to laws that were part of the racist Jim Crow laws to prove that their current infringements should be allowed to stand.

Spread the love

By awa

4 thoughts on “Another SCOTUS got it wrong”
    1. Good point. I was a little tired when I finished this article. I’ve been following SCOTUSblog for a number of years now in their coverage of gun rights. In the past I found that even the arguments I disagreed with were balanced or built on some sort of foundation. This article was just so much opinion without the normal well thought out arguments that it felt more like a NY Times opinion piece than what I expected in SCOTUSblog.

      It is sort of like my opinion of many of RBG’s opinions. I found them poor opinions or just plain wrong, but boy did that lady do her homework to support her wrong ideas.

  1. “The author argues from a position of authority. His article is full of statements given as fact that are just opinion.”

    That’s the MO of most any leftist.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.