Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

After reading the Rahimi oral argument transcript and having a better understanding of the posture, I'd say the Court upholds the Federal law, probably in the neighborhood of 7-2 or 8-1. And I'd expect some concurrences to spell out where issues are in the future.

Yeah I saw a couple articles discussing it and was surprised that most of the justices were pretty sour on Rahimi's case. Here's one

SCOTUS Weighs Who Can Be Disarmed Under the Second Amendment | The Reload

[THE_WIZARD_]

WTF kind of world do we live in...when a relative of THE KING!!!!!!! cannot get elected in Mississippi?

frightening

[iam416]

DSL:

Yeah, it was a facial challenge, not an as-applied or due process challenge or anything like that. It a much better posture for those arguing in favor of the law.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I only very quickly skimmed part of the transcript but Alito asked Rahimi's lawyer if it would be constitutional to take away guns from a man who routinely waved them around, pointed them at his family, threatened to kill them, etc? The lawyer said yeah, sure, and the obvious follow up is so why's it unconstitutional to do it to your client?

[iam416]

At the end of Progalcar's argument -- where they go around and ask the Justices if they have anything further, there's an exchange with Gorsuch. It's not long, but it's very informative, IMO.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yeah if I had to guess, Thomas dissents, Alito maybe joins with half the dissent but definitely not all of it (unless it's very brief), and the others are in some sort of majority opinion-concurrence.

But I could see even Alito partly joining the majority.

[iam416]

I'm not sure Thomas dissents.

The concurrences will be a lot of "this is not what we're saying is ok" and "we're only saying this facial challenge to this statute is no bueno" -- stuff like that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm not sure Thomas dissents.

The concurrences will be a lot of "this is not what we're saying is ok" and "we're only saying this facial challenge to this statute is no bueno" -- stuff like that.

Right, yeah, I wouldn't expect any earth-moving decision in any direction.

I didn't know as much about the background as I thought I did. It seems like perhaps gun rights activists rushed this up the ladder too fast and should've fought more in state court first, maybe?

[iam416]

They'd have been better-served to have a set of facts where the order was issued ex parte. The record was pretty thin on the underlying domestic issues, but it was a settlement with the DA where the dude agreed to the order and to the underlying facts.

[Hannibal]

So am I correctly interpreting that the challenge to the gun law was retardedly over ambitious when they could have easily challenged it on the basis of due process?

[iam416]

Well, more or less. They would have had to wait for a due process case to challenge it, but yes. Due process is not at issue. Heh.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Last night was almost entirely good for Dems but it's meaningless for 2024.

* Wins on both Ohio issues
* Won open PA Supreme Court seat to maintain a 5-2 majority
* Held onto the Virginia Senate and flipped the Virginia House
* Erased NJ Republican gains in the NJ Legislature
* Obliterated some MAGA chud trying to become Indianapolis's mayor
* Andy Beshear reelected

Few Positives for R's

* Not even Elvis can beat an R in Mississippi
* Manchester, NH mayor's race

As usual, the MAGA social media influencers say every race they lost last night was rigged.

[Mike]

The good news for the MAGA folks who had their elections stolen is that they’ve got all their top people working on it!

[Dr. Strangelove]

[THE_WIZARD_]

The R's better get their collective sheet together on abortion in 2024...it's a fucking losing issue politically. To me it is a heart issue...I'm opposed to it after x number of weeks (I'm in favor of 15 weeks) but we need to appeal to the hearts of women...not politically...they have spoken...and they reject the single digit weeks ban...it's a fucking loser.