SCOTUS, The Joke of the Judicial Branch
All across the nation, court rooms are passing judgments from the smallest court, all the way up to the Circuit Courts in regards to the 2nd Amendment and more. Today, SCOTUS just showed how inept they are at doing their jobs…again. The court that’s supposed to protect the people from tyrants, the last straw in our legal system, refusing to take on any potentially controversial cases.
The court that’s supposed to rule on whether or not something is Constitutional and give the hard decisions, refusing to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, and refusing to make the hard decisions to put an end to state based and federal based corruption.
Despite half the nation burning (figuratively…and kinda factually) over police brutality and a lack of accountability with law enforcement, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided to not hear 8 cases dealing with qualified immunity which is a doctrine they (SCOTUS) created in 1984.
As I, as you, and as everyone with something between their ears knows, there isn’t a shortage of cases that can, or should be able to be used, to get qualified immunity abolished. It’s an immunity that let’s law enforcement get away with breaking your rights and it gives them a free pass if they break them in a way that they’ve never been broken before.
Thanks to qualified immunity, accountability for law enforcement is…well, non-existent which I kinda touched on in this article. It’s a shame that so many cops are adamantly opposed to getting rid of qualified immunity; sure, it leaves them liable for certain uses of force, but like with any other profession of this nature, they should be carrying liability insurance.
As a civilian, I do for self-defense purposes, so what’s the big deal?
What do I mean by “State Extortion”? I mean the “May Issue” states for carry permits. If you don’t see it as extortion, then you don’t know how police departments can be when they get to keep the money for processing permit applications. I digress, SCOTUS had the opportunity to rule on the “May Issue” states via 4 different cases.
Gould v Lipson (from: 1st Circuit Court) was a challenge to Massachusetts’ (<-Nobody can spell that correctly without spellchecker) “May Issue” law for carry permits.
Rogers v Grewal (from: 3rd Circuit Court), Cheeseman v Polillo (from: NJ Supreme Court), and Ciolek v New Jersey (from: NJ Supreme Court) were all cases that challenged New Jersey’s “May Issue” law for carry permits.
For anyone that doesn’t know what a “May Issue” state is, essentially, the state police/local sheriff/whoever runs the carry permit process gets to determine whether or not they’re feeling up to granting you access to your rights on any particular day. Depending on who your local sheriff is, depending on who the governor is, etc, etc, etc, it can be more difficult to get your carry permit depending on the day.
You can go ahead and conclude why I’m calling it extortion; more so than “Shall Issue” states.
Other 2A Cases
Mance v Barr, coming from: 5th Circuit Court
Mance v Barr is the oldest case on the docket today dating all the way back to November 2018; imagine not doing your job for 2 years and getting to keep your job. Essentially it’s a case that argues that the regulations on purchasing a handgun from out of state break both the 2nd Amendment and the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment.
Does it break the 5th Amendment? Does it break the 2nd Amendment?
Well, the judges have decided they’d rather sit on their thumbs than work for the people.
Pena v Horan, coming from: 9th Circuit Court
Pena v Horan was a challenge to the Constitutionality of California’s prohibition of “unsafe” handguns, as well as the requirement for microstamping. This was a case that a lot of people were hoping, praying, and begging SCOTUS to rule on; especially now that it’s supposed to be “stacked in our favor”…which it’s proven to be the opposite.
Okay, so I’m not a lawyer. And I do not speak legal-ese. As far as I can tell, however, the following cases haven’t been denied (yet, but I’d bet favorite hat they will be died) so far.
Worman v. Healey, coming from: 1st Circuit Court
If you read that as Woman v. Healey don’t feel bad because I did too. Anyway, this case challenges Massachusetts’ ban on “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines”.
Malpasso v Pallozzi, coming from: 4th Circuit Court
This case challenges Maryland’s “May Issue” status.
Culp v Raoul, coming from: 7th Circuit Court
This case challenges Illinois’s ban on issuing carry permits to non-residents of the state.
Wilson v Cook County, coming from: 7th Circuit Court
This case challenges Cook County’s ban on “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines”.
SCOTUS deciding not to hear cases creates a ruling, as it defaults back to the lower court’s ruling; this is why I mentioned the courts these cases were coming from.
In the United States we have 13 Circuit Court of Appeals, each court’s rulings governing different states. So, theoretically let’s say Texas and California are within the jurisdiction of the same Circuit Court (they are not) and the Constitutionality of California’s handgun roster gets challenged, but SCOTUS refuses to hear the case… Well, then Texas can create their own handgun roster and it would go unopposed; as the Circuit Court of Appeals is the last step before getting to SCOTUS.
Now, here’s the kicker. If Circuit Court A rules Blue and Circuit Court B rules Red, SCOTUS doesn’t have to intervene. They can allowed two different groups of people, within the same nation, to be ruled by two entirely different sets of laws. So, the question begs, where is the supposed checks and balances to prevent tyranny? Because right now it doesn’t seem like they work at all.