Roberts Has Flipped on 2A

[3855WIN]

Conservative Justices Declined to Take Up Second Amendment Case after Roberts Signaled He Would Side with Liberals: Report | National Review

The four most reliably conservative justices were not confident that they would get a fifth vote from Roberts.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[TOGIE]

still considering my ignorance on the workings of the supreme court and exactly what type of restrictions were being challenged, i feel like it could be a knee jerk reaction to suggest that roberts has "flipped on 2a"

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Can we just point out how problematic it is for any case to be brought up and for the judges to be discussing how they will vote BEFORE it's heard?

 

[TOGIE]

Can we just point out how problematic it is for any case to be brought up and for the judges to be discussing how they will vote BEFORE it's heard?

but i wonder how true that is

maybe i place a lot of (too much) trust in the integrity of the highest court of the land, but i can't imagine they are actually discussing how they will vote.

NR article based off a cnn article citing unnamed sources? i'm not sure

is it: 4 judges just can't be sure based on past precedent and recent writings of a 5th to think it wise to take up an issue? or 4 judges hear the 5th saying hey boyos i'm no longer a 2a guy so better not try to bring these to the table?

am i naive? honest question.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe Chief Justice Roberts is standing up for 10th amendment rights of the states to make these decisions.

Lots of conservatives seem to have forgotten that these days.

 

[Shangobango]

Maybe Chief Justice Roberts is standing up for 10th amendment rights of the states to make these decisions.

Lots of conservatives seem to have forgotten that these days.

Both sides tend to forget about the 10th Amendment where it concerns certain issues.

 

[Wildabeest]

For SCOTUS cases, there is A LOT of evidence presented in the case/appeal application. Justices then debate whether to hear the case or not. A lot can be ascertained from those debates about each justice’s leanings on it. I agree that the article could be overstating some foregone conclusion before the case is even heard, but it’s also feasible that the more conservative justice’s could have inferred a bias by Robert’s. If they then caucused themselves to find a way to send the case back down simply on their perception of the likely outcome, that’s a dereliction of their duty. The decision on whether they should hear the case or not should not be based on what they think the outcome will be. However, given the current politicization of SCOTUS, it’s not at all surprising.

 

[Scrappy]

I made it to the end of the first paragraph where it came to the part from fake news.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Both sides tend to forget about the 10th Amendment where it concerns certain issues.

Oui. C'est épouvantable.

 

[nrpate05]

The idea that SCOTUS has liberal and conservative justices never really sat well with me. I thought judges were supposed to be impartial.

 

[Glockster]

The idea that SCOTUS has liberal and conservative justices never really sat well with me. I thought judges were supposed to be impartial.

Lol! I not sure anything is impartial!

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

The idea that SCOTUS has liberal and conservative justices never really sat well with me. I thought judges were supposed to be impartial.

Agreed, but in the end when they are interpreting laws there will always be bias. Seems to be Chief Roberts has been doing a pretty decent job of balancing the court lately as impartial. Some judgement go left, some go right.


Back to the original post, this stuff happens all the time. The court can't hear all cases that people want to bring forth, so they must decide to hear arguments or not. My guess is in debate on weather to hear it or not the conservative side didn't feel confident in a victory and felt it was better to leave it up to the lower courts.

 

[Jape]

The idea that SCOTUS has liberal and conservative justices never really sat well with me. I thought judges were supposed to be impartial.

Every judge has opinions and biases prior to taking the bench. The question is whether they can set those aside to apply the law to the issues in any particular case.

However, when it comes to "big" cases, there is empirical evidence that their biases play a greater role in their decisions. It probably would for most of us.

 

[Jape]

Back to the issues in the article, Roberts was part of the court when both the Heller and McDonald cases were decided, and he was on the "conservative" side of those decisions. Beyond having an incredible legal mind, Roberts has a lot of respect for stare decisis and I think it unlikely he would do anything that would run contrary to those decisions.

 

[bts09]

Definitely too soon to say he has "flipped" based on that article. CJ Roberts is the swing vote now, whether or not he likes it, and it may well be that his entire judicial philosophy is going to rest much more heavily on stare decisis than he would have thought/wanted when he took the bench. But that certainly seems to be on his mind a lot these days. And at least in that regard, he's neither a conservative nor liberal--a respect for past precedents, so that there is predictability to the rule of law, isn't owned by any specific political affiliation.

 

[sapperJ24]

Definitely too soon to say he has "flipped" based on that article. CJ Roberts is the swing vote now, whether or not he likes it, and it may well be that his entire judicial philosophy is going to rest much more heavily on stare decisis than he would have thought/wanted when he took the bench. But that certainly seems to be on his mind a lot these days. And at least in that regard, he's neither a conservative nor liberal--a respect for past precedents, so that there is predictability to the rule of law, isn't owned by any specific political affiliation.

Just to expand a bit on this idea. Here's a link to a recent Fivethirtyeight article: https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...e-that-doesnt-mean-hes-becoming-more-liberal/

For those interested, I'd recommend getting past the headline and looking into some of metrics used to evaluate his position within the court. Advance apologies to those who are not fans of 538/Nate Silver.

 

[Bob-WY]

There's simply no such thing as impartial. Everyone has background, learning and opinions. And they change over time as you learn and read more.

What a SC justice is supposed to do it map what is being told, to how the constitution aligns. The issue is one justice may align one way based on one part of the constitution, while another justice may align opposite based on a different part. It is rarely a black and white case. If it was, they wouldn't be involved.

The case in question isn't black and white and they are essentially arguing if it even has merit as they should be judging based on a law vs the constitution, siad law in this case is now gone.

 

[Trial153]

how the hell do you flip on a case that isnt even on the docket ?

 

[Ben Lamb]

how the hell do you flip on a case that isnt even on docket ?

All things are possible on the internet.

 

[Trial153]

I will go on the record a say Roberts has done well. I can do with out the Ideologues on both sides and all the preconceptions that come with them.