cajunandy

quote:

---

Whatcha got for me?

---

There are actually very few 2nd Amendment rights cases. The first important case was DC v Heller in which DC banned the possession of handguns. Scalia wrote the opinion in which he analyzed the the 2nd amendment and then articulated a two part test in analyzing 2nd amendment cases. !st is whether the 2nd amendment is implicated, then the Constitution protects that behavior and the burden is on the state to show that there exist a history of gun regulation to justify the present regulation. In that Heller only concerned a federal law, the states took the position that it did not apply to the states. McDonald v Chicago rejected this argument.




An issue that has yet to be decided is when looking for historical regulations to support the law have far back do you go. When the 2nd amendment was passed in 1791 it only applied to the federal government Not until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed did the BIll of rights apply to the States.

So now the issue is how far back do you have to go to find gun regulations that would support modern regulations. For real 2nd Amendment supporters one must look to the 1790's to find supporting analogs. For gun controllers they want to use the period after the Civil war,. Their problem is most if not all of these laws are based on race and are unconstitutional. The gun controllers are so desperate to find some historical support they appear to be willing to overlook that part including Jackson.

The GOAT, Les Miles, recruited Chase to play safety. Chase has had a remarkable career considering that he has been playing out of position(according to the GOAT).
:geauxtigers:

quote:

---

ACB is a procedural stickler. Gorsuch is fairly strict on procedure as well.

---

That may be why they have not granted writs on the other case as some believe there is an issue with standing.
That is the odd part of this case. It is not on final judgment, rather this is on an interlocutory appeal. SCOTUS rarely grants an interlocutory appeal.

During oral arguments on universal injunctions Gorsuch actually asked why the government did not include the citizenship part. He came across as though he was disappointed that birthright citizenship was not before them.
Lastly, I believe Sotomayor has a tell when she is on the losing side. She was clearly angry during oral arguments with the government and she was on the losing side. Her anger also included the governments attack on birthright citizenship.

quote:

---

I think it'll be 7-2 against Trump,

---

6-3 in favor of Trump
read the briefs

There is really no reason to accept this case to only affirm the lower courts. They could do that by denying the writ application.

It takes 4 justices to agree to hear the case. However you will not get 4 justices to hear the case if they know they will lose. In other words there is a 5th justice that is willing to reverse the lower court.
Read the briefs that have been filed, I suggest the briefs from the congressman and the Tennessee brief. Both are very good.

Dec 5, 2025 Orders

Dec 5 2025 orders case 25-365

Docket sheet with links to all the briefs.

quote:

---

So Congress can usurp the Constitution?

---

Not really.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states

quote:

---

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

Nothing to prevent the congress from passing a law defining "jurisdiction in such a manner that would end birthright citizenship.

Side note SCOTUS used section 5 to prevent Colorado and other states from keeping Trump off the ballad under Section 3.

quote:

---

Looking forward to a 9-0 decision against trump on this one.

---

You would think that since its such a slam dunk SCOTUS would deny Cert on the first conference. SCOTUS did not deny Cert, rather it will reschedule it for the next conference.

quote:

---

Rest in Peace fellow mariners

---

The wreck is in Canadian waters in about 525 feet of water. The Canadians passed a law declaring the wreck site a grave site and that forbids the diving on the wreck. This law passed after it was discovered that a body of one of the crew was located outside of the wreck on the bottom. Because of the temperature of the water and lack of oxygen in the water very little if any decomposition occurs. IIRC none of the crews family members wanted the body recovered, preferring that he remain with his shipmates,

RIP crew,

quote:

---

What do you call members of MAGA that are much smarter than you?

---

90percenters
:dunno: