Creating what we fear in California

[Moonbeam]

California governor signs gun control law modeled after Texas anti-abortion measure

Law allows people to sue anyone who distributes illegal assault weapons, parts used to build weapons or .50 caliber rifles

www.theguardian.com

An eye for an eye. What is good for the goose.......

In the face of injustice one has the right to do the same back. Notice the ACLU disapproves of Newsom's methods. Your opinion?

 

[fskimospy]

California governor signs gun control law modeled after Texas anti-abortion measure

Law allows people to sue anyone who distributes illegal assault weapons, parts used to build weapons or .50 caliber rifles

www.theguardian.com

An eye for an eye. What is good for the goose.......

In the face of injustice one has the right to do the same back. Notice the ACLU disapproves of Newsom's methods. Your opinion?

How are they creating what they fear? The point of these laws is to get SCOTUS to strike down the insane and obviously unconstitutional bounty provisions. It's a smart move!

What California is going to sadly discover though is in the Calvinball era of jurisprudence SCOTUS is just going to make up a reason why abortion bounty bills are fine and gun ones aren't.

 

[Paratus]

How are they creating what they fear? The point of these laws is to get SCOTUS to strike down the insane and obviously unconstitutional bounty provisions. It's a smart move!

What California is going to sadly discover though is in the Calvinball era of jurisprudence SCOTUS is just going to make up a reason why abortion bounty bills are fine and gun ones aren't.

As I just posted elsewhere, while SCOTUS will shoot down the CA law, everytime they play obvious political calvinball with the law makes it just a bit more likely that dems willing to pack the court get elected.

 

[fskimospy]

As I just posted elsewhere, while SCOTUS will shoot down the CA law, everytime they play obvious political calvinball with the law makes it just a bit more likely that dems willing to pack the court get elected.

Agreed. I think people against packing the court radically underestimate the extent to which SCOTUS will just invalidate any attempt by liberals to retaliate. I doubt they will even put that much effort into it - will probably just have some lower court invalidate it and then refuse to hear the case so they don’t have to explain themselves.

 

[Pens1566]

Agreed. I think people against packing the court radically underestimate the extent to which SCOTUS will just invalidate any attempt by liberals to retaliate. I doubt they will even put that much effort into it - will probably just have some lower court invalidate it and then refuse to hear the case so they don’t have to explain themselves.

Yes. And if they do strike down, and people still don't change their minds about court "adjustments" then you know it's really really bad.

 

[Lezunto]

fskimospy,

You are definitely moving the needle for me. I always considered packing the High Court a knee-jerk reaction which could backfire years from now. But you're making a lot of sense.

 

[fskimospy]

fskimospy,

You are definitely moving the needle for me. I always considered packing the High Court a knee-jerk reaction which could backfire years from now. But you're making a lot of sense.

Nothing gives me a bigger policy boner than ‘you moved the needle’

 

[Pens1566]

fskimospy,

You are definitely moving the needle for me. I always considered packing the High Court a knee-jerk reaction which could backfire years from now. But you're making a lot of sense.

It's really not. Every legit proposal I've seen included lower fed courts as well. Call it a "modernization" since it's been stuck in the same format since we had like half of our current population. Minimum of 13 SCOTUS justices, one for each current fed circuit (or more if expanding the # of fed circuits is part of the change).

I'd personally want to see something like a set of 27 that are randomly selected each term into 3 separate courts and random case assignments. Lower fed appeals courts kind of already have the first part anyway. It wouldn't be that much different. Biggest hurdle would be how to ramp up. Can't just add 18 new justices at one time.

 

[Jaskalas]

What California is going to sadly discover though is in the Calvinball era of jurisprudence SCOTUS is just going to make up a reason why abortion bounty bills are fine and gun ones aren't.

SCOTUS doesn't need to "make up" a very explicit second amendment.

 

[fskimospy]

SCOTUS doesn't need to "make up" a very explicit second amendment.

They do have to make up a private citizen method of enforcement though.

Imagine if in the civil rights era any lunch counter could be sued into oblivion if any person decided they discriminated. Isn’t that horrible?