Follow

1) Normally, I like to read Supreme Court rulings, and get immersed in the logic and nature of the system of laws we live under.

Sometimes, I enjoy the written backhands Justices deliver to each other, petitioners, and respondents. In the highest court of the country, only the highest forms of comedy can take root in the most serious of documents.

And then every once in a while you have a gang of fuckwits who throw a brief at the SCOTUS in a literal tantrum, and I have to rip it to shreds.

2) Today is one of those days.

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs City of New York, a court case which is hilarious in that the utter bitchslap that New York City was about to receive from the SCOTUS would be classified as a firearm under the 2A. So much of a smackdown it would be that the minute it hit SCOTUS, New York City started rolling back the law PLEADING for the court case to be dropped.

3) See, that's the power of the SCOTUS. If one city fucks up and goes too far, the SCOTUS can set a precedent that completely forestalls any subsequent attempts at unconstitutional shenanigans. That's how far New York City went with its firearms laws, and why they're trying to get SCOTUS to drop the case entirely, so that there isn't a nationwide precedent that gets laid down.

So desperate, that a gang of chucklefuck Democrat Senators jumped in trying to bully the SCOTUS into surrender.

4) Let's see the names here... Whitehouse, Hirono, Blumenthal, Durbin, and for some reason Gillibrand was allowed to tag along. If you recognize the first four of those names, congratulations, their previous shitshows in their hearings weren't completely memory-holed for you. They're half of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Then Gillibrand was allowed to jump on because I guess she's running for President or something. Odd that Booker and Harris's names are absent in that case😂

5) Oooh, a table of authorities. You can tell a lot about what an amicus brief is going to be about by what cases they list in the 'table of authorities', aka a citation list of previous court cases they'll be referencing.

Let's see what cases they cite for this important debate on the 2nd amendment!

Citizens United?

...

Janus? The fuck?

...

Obergefell v Hodges.

REALLY?

REALLY.

This is like a greatest hits list of controversial SCOTUS decisions. None of these are 2A related I think.

6) So right away, we're pretty sure this is going to be basically a fancily-worded legalese filled temper tantrum.

Ok, ok, 'other authorities'. This should be good. Outside non-court based documentation they'll be referencing.

A New York Times article. REALLY. 'other authorities' are supposed to be legal scholars and academic studies, not fucking news articles.

A MapLight article about funding for the PR campaign for Gorsuch's nomination? WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS MAPLIGHT?!

7) "Secretive Conservative Legal Group Funded by $17 Million Mystery Donor Before Kavanaugh Fight" That's not from open secrets, it was fucking cross-posted to there from fucking MapLight apparently. Again. WHAT THE FUCK IS MAPLIGHT? These aren't fucking authorities! This is fake media gaslighting from political operatives disguised as journalism!

maplight.org/story/secretive-c

8) From that article:

"More than three-quarters of the funds (Judicial Crisis Network) raised between July 2017 and June 2018 came in the form of a $17 million contribution from a single anonymous donor, according to its latest tax return, which was obtained by MapLight and OpenSecrets." You mean the tax returns they have to publicly file because the JCN is a fucking 501(c)(4) organization?!? Jesus fucking christ.

9) Secretive organization my ass.

I have tried to get into the mindset of whatever slackjawed aides put together the references for these too-dumb-to-not-shit-their-pants senators. It resulted in me shotgunning 4 pabst blue ribbons. I do not feel any closer to understanding the thought process that went into this amicus brief, I feel sick, and I now inexplicably have a desire to wear unreasonably thick brimmed glasses and ball-crunching skinny jeans.

10) Hill articles. Politico articles. Letters from THE SENATORS OWN OFFICES. An article from 'In These Times' whatever fucking fly by night blog that is. An opinion piece written by fucking senator Whitehouse himself. A GODDAMN QUINNIPAC POLL.

Ladies and Gentlemen. I am on page 7 of this 25 page document. I have hit rock bottom and they aren't even out of the citations yet. Send help. Or bourbon. Just throw a barrel or 100 into the river, it'll make its way to me eventually.

11) Ah, the 'interest of the Amici Curiaei, their REASON for filing this shitshow of an amicus brief. Which I assume was filed by making a bag out of the paper, filling it with shit, and lighting it on fire on the steps of the SCOTUS.

"Amici share with the Court a strong interest in the preservation of the separation of powers that sustains our constitutional form of government."

Separation of powers. REALLY. THAT'S what they're going with.

I stand by my statement. It smells like flaming shit

12) The summary of their argument, the TL;DR if you will, because no one in their right mind should ever WANT to read this. I state this having only read the citation list, their threatening closing statement, and their reason for filing. I'm THAT CONFIDENT in how bad this is.

"The judiciary was not intended to settle hypothetical disagreements. The Framers designed Article III courts to adjudicate actual controversies brought by plaintiffs who suffer real-world harm."

Done. I'm done.

13) IT IS NOT A GODDAMN HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION IF A LAW THAT WAS SO BAD NEW YORK CITY HAD TO RETRACT IS BEFORE THE SCOTUS COULD STRIKE IT DOWN WAS PASSED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

That is NOT what hypothetical means! And besides, all the court DOES is deal with hypothetical situations! Seriously! Read the goddamn transcripts of arguments sometimes, 'what ifs' are like 80% of the questions!

14) The rationale for this long settled principle is simple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). “It can be tempting for judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the requirements of the law,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomes from the bench. But a judge “is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.”

This was Robert's dissent in Obgerfell. 🤦‍♂️

15) This is facepalm worthy because at this point I'm reasonably certain that whoever included this as part of their argument forgot that they won this one, as Obergefell v Hodges is what made gay marriage legal. IF THEY'RE USING THIS IN THEIR ARGUMENT THEY'RE SIDING AGAINST THE RULING THAT LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGE. YOU STUPID FUCKING IDIOTS.

WHY?!? Did you just HAVE to take a shot at Roberts so much that you shot your own goddamn platform in the foot?!

Worst part: this is a theme in this brief.

16) "In short, courts do not undertake political “projects.” Or at least they should not." I'm glad you Senators agree that a judge in fucking Hawaii (LOOKING AT YOU HIRONO) should not be dictating what the Trump administration's immigration policies should be with nationwide injunctions.

17) "Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court."

Basically they didn't win, now they don't want the SCOTUS to make any rulings that will potential fuck THEIR projects to reshape the 2nd amendment. Notice how they don't clarify how much money Dems spent trying to STOP the confirmations

18) "Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law, the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation."

Here's where they reference a single quinnipac poll. You know what, I'm looking it up now.

poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/

"Do you support background checks for gun purchases?" WE ALREADY HAVE THAT YOU FUCKING DOLTS. Live polling and 1000 respondents. One poll. Yeah, ok. GREAT citation.🤦‍♂️

19) Ok. After 18 tweets we finally get to the argument itself. Thank fuck.

No, not thank fuck. DAMNITALL. It gets worse.

"Parties and lawyers seeking to shape the law through affirmative litigation might once have been reticent to openly promote their political agenda in this Court. No longer."

So you oppose open borders groups dictating our immigration policies via the courts? No? Then what the fuck's your point.

20) "Confident that a Court majority assures their success, petitioners laid their cards on the table: “The project this Court began in Heller and McDonald cannot end with those precedents,” petitioners submit."

Yes, that's EXACTLY what the petitioners are doing, because apparently McDonald and Heller weren't enough to keep New York City from passing its own draconian gun laws that kept people from simply moving legally owned handguns out of their own goddamn home.

Show more

@hnijohnmiller I've pulled it up and have been reading along with you. It reads like a badly thought out temper tantrum

@hnijohnmiller Wait for page 10 - they start reading the Federalist to the court

@hnijohnmiller

This actually seems like an implied threat. "Do this or you'll be seen as motivated by politics!" Methinks they're trying to prod at a certain chief justice.

@hnijohnmiller Holy crap, that's how they move their agenda more often than not, finding judges who will rule based on politics.

@hnijohnmiller Mollie Hemingway devoted a lot of her #1 Bestselling book, "Justice On Trial", to discussing the dark money that the Left uses to try to influence the court nomination process while shrieking loudly about the Right doing the exact same thing.

@drawandstrike @hnijohnmiller Figures. They've been stuck on projection for a long, long, time and aren't going to change anytime soon.

@hnijohnmiller

No.

Nobody forgot anything.

JUDAS GOATS.

This is Trump's people wreaking havoc deep in enemy territory.

@hnijohnmiller LMAO. This is the best thread on all of social media. And I'm not even half way through.

@hnijohnmiller

"hypothetical disagreements" Sounds like somebody thinks that just because the city is rolling back it's laws it's now no longer a "real" issue.

@hnijohnmiller

They're trying to use the classic justiciability doctrine of mootness. And those lawyers know DAMN WELL from their first week of Constitutional Law that this doesn't work there.

@hnijohnmiller
If that helps I'm in, but stay away from that nasty Blue Ribbon, that shit will kill you...

@hnijohnmiller

The fact that this made it to SCOTUS is an insult to generations of not only American lawyers, but also the British common law that served as the foundation.

@hnijohnmiller

JUDAS GOATS.

They're working for the senators.

They know EXACTLY what they're doing.

@hnijohnmiller
🤣🤣You're fucking killing me here Fudge 👏👏🤣

@hnijohnmiller

Not the plaid body pajama with a hand holding a mug?

@hnijohnmiller

Even my Leftist fuckwit Constitutional Law professor admitted Obergefell made no fucking sense.

To spare everyone a wall of text, the court made up a new exclusive test just for that one case with no precedent in existence and then oh would you look at that, Obergefell passes the test!

There were MULTIPLE Constitutional grounds like equal protection the SCOTUS could have ruled on and everyone would agree was supported by precedent. Instead they basically created legislation.

@hnijohnmiller

Thank you, Kyle. I did not read the court case and was a bit baffled. You cleared that up for me. 😁

@JM @hnijohnmiller

"The Supreme Court is not well."

That's their summary, in a NUTshell. 😏

@hnijohnmiller

Love hearing this news! Dumbest gun law NYC out in. Made absolutely no sense to anyone-apparently not even to NYC! Loved they pleaded for case to be dropped!

Bullies do not always win!

@hnijohnmiller
I have to say that your incredulity fuels the hilarity. This thread was worth setting up an account here all by itself. One thread of many that fit that criteria 😄

@hnijohnmiller love me some bourbon fudge. So glad you are on here. Spending less and less time on twatter thanks to the move made by people/favorites like you!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
QuodVerum Forum

Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.