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.
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!
Janus? The fuck?
Obergefell v Hodges.
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!
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.
Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.