View Single Post
Old December 1, 2021, 03:04 PM   #108
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Metal god
"Read this after my OP . At least one person agrees with me lol

Judge Hurwitz has penned a short concurrence
respectfully characterizing as inappropriate and hyperbolic
my observations regarding how my colleague’s personal
views influence our court’s Second Amendment cases. I
agree that it is a troubling charge to posit personal views as
a driving force behind judicial decision-making, and not one
I make lightly. But whatever else it may be, my claim is
hardly hyperbolic. Here are the facts: We are a monstrosity
of a court exercising jurisdiction over 20% of the U.S.
population and almost one-fifth of the states—including
states pushing the most aggressive gun-control restrictions
in the nation. By my count, we have had at least 50 Second
Amendment challenges since Heller—significantly more
than any other circuit—all of which we have ultimately

In those few instances where a panel of our court
has granted Second Amendment relief, we have without fail
taken the case en banc to reverse that ruling. This is true
regardless of the diverse regulations that have come before
us—from storage restrictions to waiting periods to
ammunition restrictions to conceal carry bans to open carry
bans to magazine capacity prohibitions—the common thread
is our court’s ready willingness to bless any restriction
related to guns. Respectfully, Judge Hurwitz’s claim that
our judges’ personal views about the Second Amendment
and guns have not affected our jurisprudence is simply not
plausible. Res ipsa loquitur.

Thanks for posting that.

The paradigm holding that courts should regard cases from an entirely objective perspective - the blindfold on the figure holding the scales of justice, if it ever was valid, appears valid no longer. It's pretty to think so, but it clearly isn't true.

The 9th Circuit Court in particular has consistently demonstrated a liberal bias, and with respect to 2nd Amendment cases in particular has utterly ignored the definition of the words "shall not be infringed".

Their iniquity is exceeded only by their piety, the reverence they extoll for the 'justice' they deliver while treading on Constitutional rights.

Clearly matters have reached a point where the Court itself recognizes its own hypocrisy.
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Page generated in 0.03323 seconds with 8 queries