The American public no longer believes the Supreme Court is impartial

“Never in recent history, perhaps, have so many Americans viewed the Supreme Court as fundamentally partisan.”

Ummm, I’d guess the author of this rant never talked to anybody from the right in “recent history”. We had Sotomayor and Kagan appointed to the Supreme Court with some of the worse credentials and court history. We saw Kagan(?) refuse to recuse herself when ruling on ObamaCare when the state brought the arguments she wrote to the court.

We had the “notorious RGB” how was freaking awesome at finding a reason to go with her political choices in almost every major ruling.

For decades the question was never “Which leftist justice will side with the conservatives?” it was always “Which ‘conservative’ justice will cave this time?”

The number of decisions made by the Supreme Court while under leftist control that were unmoored from the constitution is absolutely amazing to consider.

Yes, many Americans view the Supreme Court as partisan, they have for decades, the difference is that it is now the left that is feeling it rather than rejoicing in it.

“In one recent poll, a majority of Americans opined that Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings.”

A true statement, I do believe that the leftist justices let their partisan views influence them. While I might not like some of the rulings that come out because they didn’t give me the results I want, I respect those conservative judges that follow the law, rather than their partisan views.

“But Democrats’ support has plummeted to 13 percent,…”

Of course, because they weren’t getting their way. Leftist love to cry when the lose, hoping mommy will come save them. For years “mommy” was SCOTUS.

Just look at the number of times that they run to the courts to overturn some conservative law, regulation or order. Yet they are always upset if a conservative asks for the same.

“Public support for the high court sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. The decision delighted many conservatives but defied a large majority of Americans who believe abortion should be legal.”

Oh my, look at how they twist the language. “revoked a constitutional right” is their way of saying “abortion is a states issue”. As a conservative I approve of this. It didn’t outright ban abortion nor did it make abortion legal in all 50 states. It said that the states get to say.

This is because our country was designed to allow the different states to experiment within the bounds of the constitution. The people can then vote with their feet if it gets bad.

The big kicker is that they are conflating “abortion should be legal” with “should have a federally protected ability to legally get an abortion”. And the results are in the details. There are a number of conservatives that believe that all elective abortions should be illegal. There are others that have some other limit on when elective abortions should be illegal.

This means that “large majority” includes all those shadings of “should be legal”.

“Yet, partisan anger runs deeper than Dobbs. Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years, knocking the panel out of synch with the American public.”

It shouldn’t matter if the court, not panel, is “out of sync” with the American public. That is something for the legislature. The court is suppose to be honoring the Constitution by applying it faithfully as it was written, within the history and tradition of the Constitution.

The court is not suppose to be about winning popularity contests.

The term now being used is “legitimacy”.

“James L. Gibson, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, defines it[legitimacy] as ‘loyalty to the institution. It is willingness to support the institution even when it’s doing things with which you disagree.'”

Ok. That’s a reasonable definition. Not sure what Webster has to say, but I can work with this.

“But then, with Dobbs, the high court suffered ‘the largest decline in legitimacy that’s ever been registered, through dozens and dozens of surveys using the same indicators,’ Gibson said. ‘I’ve never seen anything like it.'”

Wait a moment, is legitimacy being loyal to the institution or is it something you get by polling? The court didn’t suffer a decline in legitimacy, it suffered an attack by the left questioning the Justice’s loyalty to the institution which the left defined as loyal to the laws, regulations, and rules they wanted to see upheld.

This is always the same game played by the left. Something is illegal for years and years and years. They finally get ONE decision to go their way. From that time forward it is evil to question that decision. From that point forward is the status quo and nobody should question it.

“‘The idea that you have the spouse of a Supreme Court justice advocating for overthrowing the government — sui generis, I think,’ said Caroline Fredrickson, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University, invoking the Latin term for ‘unique.'”

Except this is a lie. Ginni Thomas didn’t advocate for the overthrowing the government. Nobody did. And what difference does it make what Ginni does? She’s not a Supreme Court Justice. Just listen to the left screaming that there is no conflict of interest when there are spouses in the media of Democrats in the White House.

“‘[Roberts]’s the justice who twice saved Obamacare,” Malcolm said. Roberts joined the court’s liberals in rejecting legal challenges to health care reform by a popular president.”

Did Roberts save it by finding the law as written was Constitutional? Nope, he had to redefine a penalty as a tax. He gave the government the ability to tax people for not doing something. That’s a new tax for sure.

Roberts is the darling of the left right now because he can’t be trusted to follow the Constitution. He is much more likely to be swayed by political concerns.

“In its first term with a six-person conservative bloc, the high court overturned Roe, posited a Second Amendment right to carry guns in public and restricted the government’s role in combating climate change, among other rulings.  ”

Interesting word there “posited”. According to Oxford Languages it means “assume as fact; put forward as a basis of argument.” In other words it wasn’t that Bruen reaffirmed the guarantees of the second amendment belongs to the people for all lawful purposes, it was just “assumed” to be a fact, for argument’s sake.

This is all because the Supreme Court is no longer an extremist left-wing institution.

“In previous decades, by contrast, ‘the U.S. Supreme Court has rarely been out of step with the preferences of its constituents, the people,’ Gibson said. ‘Throughout history, the court has ratified the views of the majority, not opposed them.'”

Again we have this professor arguing that the court is suppose to be siding with the mob, not applying the law, as written.

“In the months to come, President Biden and congressional Democrats could restore the court’s ideological balance by packing it with liberals, or hobble it by narrowing its jurisdiction. But they probably won’t, legal observers say, because the Republicans could one day weaponize the same tools against the Democrats.”

It amazes me how often the left wants to change the rules when they win but don’t want the new rules to apply to them when the lose. Yes, Trump appointed 3 Justices. All of the noise about should or should not allowed a vote on Garland or Amy Coney Barrett was because the right was using the rules against the left. The left screamed for a do over or a change in rules. Something they would never do if the shoe was on the other foot.

Since they lost the battle of court packing, the left is now arguing for term limits for Supreme Court Justices. One has to ask “How would the left have responded to RBG being kicked off the court?”

From Rick The Bear:

Nice to see “assault weapons” can finally be freed from their social stigma so they can be above the hearth in every home (that wants one). 8>)

I had asked for a vertical gun stand. My lovely wife got me this nice wooden stand off Amazon. Took about 5 minutes to put up. Then her AR-15 went up on the wall.

Yes, I understand “Secure your Firearms!”

This hit the Supreme Court website about 1100 today.

The application to vacate the Second Circuit courts stay was denied. Sotomayor presented the case to the court and the court decided to leave things as is for the time being.

Alito joining put forth an opinion on the denial. IIRC it is uncommon for the Supreme Court to give opinions when they deny Cert. or other applications. Generally is is just “nope”. and that’s the end of it.

Alito wrote:

The application to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court is denied.

Statement of JUSTICE ALITO , with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay.

The New York law at issue in this application presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the injunction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling. App. to Emergency Application 2. In parallel cases presenting related issues, the Second Circuit has likewise issued unreasoned summary stay orders, but in those cases it has ordered expedited briefing. See, e.g., Order in Hardaway v. Nigrelli, No. 22–2933 (CA2, Dec. 7, 2022), ECF Doc. 53; Order in Christian v. Nigrelli, No. 22–2987 (CA2, Dec. 12, 2022), ECF Doc. 40.

I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.

This opinion is very good for us. It says “We understand that we need to let the Second Circuit do its thing, but if the Second Circuit doesn’t provide a full explanation for its stay or if it doesn’t grant expedited consideration, get your asses back here.”

This is a spanking of the Second Circuit, just not as hard as I wanted it to be.

We have seen a number of cases go into the court system and we keep getting wins. We recently had the entire “bump stock” ban be declared unconstitutional. Parts of the NJ kill carry bill were found unconstitutional. Parts of the NY CCIA have been ruled unconstitutional multiple times.

Lots of wins.

These wins come because the second amendment rights groups are bringing the fight to the government.

But not all the cases are currently wins.

Recently in King County, WA a judge granted a preliminary injunction against a gun store.

The Washington State version of the gestapo was sending in undercover agents to attempt to purchase standard capacity magazines. Four times they showed up and the guy behind the counter didn’t twig.

This means that the store is on the hook for $7500 for offering a standard capacity magazine for sale and another $7500 for each actual sale. So $15,000 for every magazine they sold.

The question that was asked by the plaintiffs (bad guys) was if the defendants(good guys) broke Washington State law in selling standard capacity magazines. Because that was the question asked, that is the question that the court will answer.

At trial, we can hope that the defendants make a Second Amendment case challenging the law. Because the state brought the suite this means that the defendants have standing.

This could be planned, it could just be somebody giving a F’you to the state and getting caught.
Let’s watch and see.

WA county judge orders gun shop to stop selling high-capacity magazines

I use to be an audiophile. My best friend introduced me to “professional” sound equipment. Crown D150 per speaker and something to drive it at class A quality.

Then my mentor introduced me to “studio quality” sound equipment. Made my thousands of dollars in stereo equipment sound like a cheap boom box.

I was over over at this place to listen to his stereo one evening. His turntable had a 200 pound granite base for vibration isolation. Infinity reference speakers.

He played Heart’s Magic Man which was his comparison song. Both on vinyl and on CD. And you could hear the difference. Later we did A-B testing with random co-workers on different quality of digital sound reproduction to see which was better.

Regardless, this lead to a long time interest in music. I love to listen to music. When I’m programming I’ll often have music in my headphones. I want to be able to hear the good music.

At night, before falling asleep I’ll put on 30 minutes of random music picked by Miss Google. She’s learned the sort of music I like.

My lady heard this song for the first time and broke out laughing. It is such a collection of rude objectification of women. Still it has a nice beat to it.

To help get that song out of her head I then pulled up this song for her.

Hope y’ll enjoyed both

J.Kb. posted a nice write up today about how the district courts and lower state courts all seem to be following Bruen and handing out win after win. This is great!

I do want to point out a potential issue that we all have to be careful about.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge to the relevant provisions of Chapter 1`31 Section 7(a), which criminalizes carrying handguns in certain “sensitive places,” subparts 12 (public libraries or museums), 15 (bars, restaurants, and where alcohol is served), 17 (entertainment facilities), and 24 (private property), as well as section 7(b)’s ban on functional firearms in vehicles. The State may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation. Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions. The deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, as holders of valid permits from the State to carry handguns, constitutes irreparable injury, and neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Accordingly, good cause exists, and the Court will grant the motion for temporary restraints. An accompanying order of today’s date shall issue

In Bruen the Court said that once the Second Amendment is implicated it is then on the government to demonstrate a history and tradition of firearm regulation in support of that infringement.

This is very important as it changes the burden of proof from the plaintiffs (good guys) to the defendants (bad guys). In many of the cases we have covered we’ve seen how the state, over and over again, makes a broad sweeping statement of “it is supported by history and tradition” but then doesn’t bring the proof.

Instead the state argues that it is upto the plaintiffs to prove that there was no such history or tradition. It is impossible to prove a negative. As soon as it becomes the accepted methodology we are going to see a series of cases where the state claims there is a tradition and history and the courts will require the plaintiffs to prove that it isn’t.

At which point the state merely has to show one case that disproves the position. The case will devolve into arguments about if it is an outlier or something else.

For example, Bruen explicitly excludes gun control laws from the frontier west. While there are many signs and lots of history showing that many western towns had the people turn in their guns when they rode into town, the size of the population of the United States in the western states where these laws and regulations existed was less than 1%.

But in an argument before the Ninth Circus court I would not be at all surprised to see this flipping of the burden of proof and then having the state point to these western outliers as enough to show that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving there was no history or tradition. Also not that there is a logic error there.

The state is required to show a law has history AND tradition. The opposite of that is “no history or no tradition” but the state puts it as “no (history or tradition)” which is logically wrong.

All in all this is a great opinion. We want to make sure we watch for those word games that can turn this on its head.

B.L.U.F. When a conflict of understanding the language of a law which is enacted by a regulatory agency (EPA, ATF, and so on) a judge is required to accept the agencies “definitions”. This is why so many government agencies think they can get away with putting out regulations which are not based on law.

In February of 1984 the case was argued before the Supreme Court and in June of 1984 they issued their opinion.

The Clear Air Act Amendments of 1977 Congress required that States that had not achieved the national air quality standards established by the EPA to use a permitting program within the State.

The amended Clean Air Act required a permitting scheme whereby an new or modified major stationary sources of air pollution were required to get a permit. The permit was not to be issued unless several stringent conditions were met.

The EPA created regulations that said all sources within a single plant were to be considered as a whole. Not individually. They did this by defining what “stationary source” meant.

This upset the Natural Resources Defense Council so they filed suit. The case made its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued their opinion saying, in short: The term “stationary source” as provided in the legislation is ambiguous. The subject matter experts in this is the government agency in charge of regulating “stationary sources” of pollution, the EPA.

Since the EPA is that agency, and because they are the subject matter experts, their definition of what “stationary source” means is the correct one. Moving forward, all inferior courts should give deference to the government agency anytime the definitions are not unambiguous.

This has lead to many cases being shot down long before they get anywhere. The EPA says “that’s a wetland”, the land owners say “it’s a f’ing mud puddle”, the courts say “The EPA says it is a wetland, it is a wetland.” The land owner says “But that’s why we are hear in court, there is a conflict as to the meaning of “wetlands” and we want the courts to clarify the meaning, that’s your job.”

On appeal, the circuit courts would say “Chevron says we must defer to the agency in these cases.”

This is what the ATF is depending on in their new rules regarding “frames and receivers”. The ATF is saying that because the term “frame or receiver” is ambiguous they get to set the definition. They are using Chevron as their legal standing to do so.

Unfortunately for them, the term frame or receiver is not ambiguous. We all know what one is. The ATF can issue a determination that a particular chunk-o-metal has reached the stage where it is a frame or receiver. They can’t say “This will become a frame or receiver and thus is a frame or receiver”.

The language precludes them from the definition they want to use. If something is “readily converted into a frame or receiver” it is by definition, NOT a frame or receiver. If it is not a frame or receiver then the ATF doesn’t get to regulate it.

Again, under Chevron the ATF says that a recursive definition, “It is a frame or receiver because it can readily become a frame or receiver” is a real definition. Using that definition, if an 80% lower is a receiver because it can readily become a receiver. Thus a raw forging is a receiver because it can readily become an 80% lower which is actually a receiver. Which of course leads to a chunk of aluminum bar stock is a receiver because it can readily become an 80% lower, which is actually a receiver.

Does this mean that a bunch of aluminum cans, about to be smelted down and reused is now a firearm? Those aluminum cans can readily be converted into bar stock which can readily be converted into an 60% raw billet receiver which can readily be converted into an 80% lower which can readily be converted into an actual receiver which can be turned into a firearm, readily.