SCOTUS: Enforcement Or Irrelevance

Pigpen51 left a comment on an earlier column regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals complicity in California’s brazen violations of the Constitution. He thinks the Supreme Court needs to make some rulings with absolutely no wiggle room to allow California — and like-minded oathbreakers — to continue enforcing bad laws.

I hope that they do so with, shall we say gusto, or extreme prejudice, or with a heavy gavel? Because if they leave even the smallest crack in the rebuke, no doubt the anti Constitution liberals will find a way to yet again hold things up

Crack? Taking advantage of a “crack” is what they did with the original Gun-Free School Zones” law. SCOTUS tossed it, so they passed a new bill virtually identical to the original, with “moved in interstate commerce” tacked on.

Mostly they don’t worry about cracks anymore. If a law gets tossed, they simply pass it again with the punctuation slightly altered, and declare that it’s new and SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on this one. That forces the pro-freedom types to waste time and money to fight what is essentially the exact same law. Blue state legislators and AGs don’t mind because it isn’t their money they’re wasting; it’s yours.

SCOTUS should have put a stop to that decades ago. Now, emboldened by SCOTUS’ failure to slap them down, they’re escalating. California just passed a couple more bills that clearly violate BRUEN. And they know it. Newsom said so, saying that they will not be bound by the “general, historical legal tradition” demanded by BRUEN.

“Newsom framed the move as a response to the “rights reduction” caused by gun laws that function under a “1790s framework,” a recording of the signing showed.”

And it wasn’t just Newscum saying it. It’s actually in the bill passed and signed. (It helps to read the “Whereas” rationalization preface to bills, and not just the hard action portions.)

No longer will they need to “keep kicking that can down the road.” If SCOTUS doesn’t start arresting these scumbags, they don’t need to “change the makeup of the court” that they’ll ignore anyway.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail