Below is my column on Fox.com on the ruling in United States v. Rahimi and its implications for the Hunter Biden appeal. The hope for a final pass to the Court ended with an 8-1 decision against the challenge to the federal gun law.
Here is the column:
On Friday, Hunter Biden may have lost the greatest Hail Mary pass in history. When Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach threw his famous winning touchdown pass to wide receiver Drew Pearson in 1975, he later explained “I closed my eyes and said a Hail Mary.” For Hunter, the pass to the Supreme Court roughly 50 years later just missed in equally spectacular fashion.
Hunter and his legal team were counting on the Court striking down the federal gun law at issue in the case of United States v. Rahimi. Hunter was just convicted by a unanimous jury in Delaware for false statements on a gun form and possession of a firearm as a drug addict. He has been arguing against the position of his father’s administration and adopting the same argument of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The Supreme Court just voted 8-1 that the law is indeed constitutional and that a court can temporarily deprive citizens of the right to possess weapons for the protection of others. The sole dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas.
The case involved Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who was under a restraining order after a 2019 argument with his girlfriend (called C.M. in the opinion) who had a child with him. Rahimi allegedly knocked C.M. down, dragged her to a car, and then (as C.M. fled) shot at either C.M. or a bystander. He was also accused of threatening to shoot her if she went to the cops.
Hunter Biden has been arguing against the position of his father’s administration and adopting the same argument of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in challenging the constitutionality of the law. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
The Texas trial court found that Rahimi was not only engaged in “family violence” but that additional violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” Under the protective order, Rahimi’s gun license was suspended for two years and he was barred from contacting C.M. for that period. Under the order, his gun rights would be suspended for either one or two years after his release date, depending on any imprisonment.
However, Rahimi was not done yet. He later violated the order by approaching C. M. and communicated with her by social media. Months later, Rahimi threatened a different woman with a gun and was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Finally, a police officer later identified him as the suspect in a spate of at least five additional shootings.
That was not exactly a poster child for lawful gun owners and the Court failed to see the suspension of his gun rights as an unconstitutional deprivation. Since the Court first recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), it has stated that this is not an absolute right. There are no truly absolute rights in the Constitution.
The Court found the federal statutes imposing a reasonable temporary limitation on this right. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The key is the temporary qualification. The Court is only saying that a court can make reasonable decisions based on such a record to protect others from allegedly violent defendants.
While the majority found that such temporary limits were consistent with historical practices, Justice Thomas, the author of the Bruen decision that reinforced the protections under the Second Amendment after Heller, objected that the Court could not cite “a single historical regulation” to justify the federal law. Bruen had emphasized such historical practices in interpreting the protections under the Second Amendment.
That brings us back to Hunter. While the result in Washington was not as bad as the unanimous decision in Delaware, it may well have sealed his fate on appeal. U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika did not leave him much for appeal in overseeing a fair and textbook trial.
The Biden legal team had been counting on Hail Mary passes since a Special Counsel was appointed. It almost worked. Special Counsel David Weiss seemed to work hard to avoid any felony charges against the president’s son.
The Justice Department not only allowed the statute of limitations to run on major crimes, but sought to finalize an obscene plea agreement with no jail time for Hunter. In the hearing to accept the plea, Judge Noreika decided to ask a couple of cursory questions of the prosecutor, particularly about a sweeping immunity provision covering any and all crimes committed by Hunter. The prosecutor admitted that he had never seen an agreement this generous for a defendant.
The plea fell apart and the Biden team seemed unwilling to accept anything but a single throw victory. They told the prosecutor in court “just rip it up.”
The Biden legal team then blundered in taking the case to trial with a jury nullification strategy. Some of us wrote that Hunter needed to plead guilty to avoid jail time. Instead, they hoped that a Delaware jury in Bidentown could never convict a Biden. They were wrong.
That left the last pass to the Supreme Court, which just seemed to land in the stadium seats. In reality, it was never a strong throw. After all, Hunter was convicted for lying on gun forms, something that the Court was never likely to excuse.
What is now left for Hunter are sentencing guidelines that strongly support jail time and a judge who has imposed such jail time in past cases.
The other group of people that may be even more upset with this ruling may be many in the media and Congress. Once again, the Court has shattered the false narrative that this is a hopelessly divided Court along ideological lines. This month the Court has continued to rule unanimously or nearly unanimously, including in cases like Rahimi in controversial constitutional claims.
Instead, the Court rendered a reasonable, balanced accommodation for public safety under the Second Amendment. It is not clear who is more disappointed: Hunter or the Court critics.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
There are so many unregistered firearms in the US, anything the Supreme Court has today is pointless.
There are so many unregistered firearms in the US
As well there should be
I was today years old when I learned that “inalienable rights” has an asterisks next to it.
OT.
Judge Cannon appears to be looking into an interesting issue. She has asked Jack Smith’s team to disclose how much they are coordinating with Merrick Garland.
They said they don’t want to appear to be hiding anything but they chose to hide something. They refused to say.
The thing about an Independent Counsel is that it is supposed to be ‘independent’. It’s even in the name for those who are confused.
You have to be as confused as Biden not to recognize that this lawfare is likely managed from people in the White House. And those people need to go to prison. Perhaps they will.
Perhaps. Let us hope.
I think the reason for that is that if Smith is a principal officer he was required to have been appointed by the president and approved by the senate. If he is not a principal officer, he must be under the supervision of a principal officer. Hence the question about Garland. It was a clever question for Cannon to have asked.
If Smith is a principle officer – the Office is constitutionally required to have been created by Congress. There is no SC Statute. The current SC Law is a bunch of regulations cobbled together by AG Reno after the Independent Counsel law was allowed to expire.
There is no doubt that SOMETHING needs to exist to deal with situations where there is a conflict of interests between the WH or DOJ reqarding an investigation.
But at this moment NOTHING exists. There is no actual US Office of the Special Counsel, therefore ALL SC’s since the late 90’s have been unconstitutional.
As the law currently stands, the AG can constitutionally appoint an existing US attorney to investigate where there is a conflict of interests between the WH or DOJ and the investigation. But that SC can not actually be independent or the oversight of the AG.
That is a suboptimal arrangement – but it is the only one that would be constitutional with CURRENT laws.
The SC would have to be an INFERIOR US officer to an INFERIOR office that the AG has the authority to create on his own.
That would make the SC signifcantly inferiour in power and responsibility to a US Attorney. It certainly would NOT allow them to convene a grand jury or to investigate and prosecute nationwide.
“OT”
Thanks for the update. I wondered what had transpired.
I am not sure of the details here – My understanding is that Cannon had Correctly thwarted Trump’s efforts to use THIS proceding to seek evidence of coordination.
She has ALSO correctly thwarted Smith’s efforts to prevent the introduction of evidence of coordination and Bias obtained through FOIA or other hearings.
But the most fundimental issue was correctly raised by Thomas Masse’squestioning of Merrit Garland.
THE IS NO SPECIAL COUNSEL STATUTE.
Much of the Meise amicus is devoted tot he FACT that Smith is a superior officer of the united states and therefore MUST be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
But Masse points out that ALL officies of the united states MUST be created by congress.
There is no Special Counsel statute. Congress created an Independent Coundel statute long ago, and that was allowed to expire.
Subsequently AG Reno cobbled together a bunch of REGULATIONS that constitute the Special Counsel law today.
But this “law” is unconstitutional – it creates an “office” of the united states without legislation by congress to do so.
Smith was illegally apointed to an illegal office.
While there is little doubt that Congress needs to actually do something.
No matter what you feel about the MAL prosecution, there MUST be some means to investigate and prosecute alleged criminal conduct where there is a clear conflict of interest with the President especially or the DOJ generally.
There were serious problems with the prior independent counsel law, but it was actually superior to what we have today.
The independent counsel law required a 3 judge pannel to appoint and oversee the IC and to continuously review the scope of the IC investigation.
Regardless, what we have now is inarguably an unconstitutional mess.
Sotomayor does it again
“the safety and security of the country”.
That is not your job, you ignorant kunt.
It’s the age of a political activist judiciary. Very unfortunate for We The Peeps.
REGARDING THE ANONYMOUS / TROLLS:
Online vitriol has become pervasive (Coe et al., 2014; Maia & Rezende, 2016). This study determined that user motives behind online trolling behaviors on Reddit stem from a combination of maladjusted personality traits—chiefly, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism
Brubaker, P. J., Montez, D., & Church, S. H. (2021). The Power of Schadenfreude: Predicting Behaviors and Perceptions of Trolling Among Reddit Users. Social Media + Society, 7(2).
Money is an even stronger explanation.
If there was a story of Trump on a magic unicorn having an intelligent discussion with the Easter Bunny, the most unbelievable part of that would Trump having an intelligent discussion.
Then Turley would make a Hunter Biden post about it.
Bwahahababab oh sammy, you’re so funny!!!!
Seriously dude, is that what passes for humor at your nursing home??
Sammy: Can I have some of what you’ve been smokin’?🦄
Do tell Sammy…was that the Easter Bunny who had to tell Pedo Joe where he was supposed to be??
https://youtu.be/LtqiLobIJnU
Or was it the “oyster bunny” that Joe asked everyone to say hello to?
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/say-hello-to-oyster-bunnies-biden-flubs-easter-egg-roll-speech-in-latest-gaffe-white-house-mental-fitness-president-joe-2024-election-washington-dc-holiday-monday-brain-think-thought-trump
Nothing like watching a mentally impaired Sammy Metamucil step in his own steaming turd.
I understand your point, Sammy. It’s clear for those who choose to see.
You do? Which easter (oyster) bunny was he referring to?
Arming Ukraine is election interference and the Dems know it.
The more money that Putin has to spend on that war, the less he can contribute to the Trump Campaign.
Where is the fairness !!!!
Putin endorsed Biden.
All our enemies want another four years of a Biden admin. It benefits them the most. Why? Biden is clearly incompetent, mentally on the decline, his foreign and domestic policies are a disaster.
If Trump gets any more incoherent the right wing evangelicals will claim he is speaking in tongues.
Listen closely.
Mayorkis = obadee obadah
You’re talking about our current Usurper, right?? Trump is not in any way incoherent
All you have to do is read Justice Thomas’ dissent in Rahimi to see his unhinged zealotry take over when it comes to the 2A rights. (I define zealotry as becoming divorced from common sense in pursuit of a cause).
In it, he claims that the 2nd Amendment affords the right of gun possession to EVERY citizen.
This is an infantile (or fanatical) assertion. A legally-trained professional is aware that all rules have exceptions. Do 5-year old children have firearm ownership rights under 2A? Do convicted murderers serving time on prison have the right to keep a gun handy “for self-defense”?
The 8-1 decision points to Thomas as seized by ideology when it comes to gun rights. And Justices Sotomayor and Barrett were right to say that Bruen was not a clear-headed decision that the lower courts could use as dependable guidance. The “history and tradition” standard is vague and inviting of arbitrary judgment on the part of a trial Jury or appellate Judge. History can be trolled to find any legal interpretation one wishes to justify. Going back centuries to find what one is looking for galling.
You should love it. More court cases!
Oh, i guess thats only tort.
Well, it could lead to that as well. All we need is the constitution and some courts. You and george always seem to agree on that.
“In it, he claims that the 2nd Amendment affords the right of gun possession to EVERY citizen.”
Thats not how i read it, but:
What was the age limit to serve in the revolutionary war, or be a member of the miltia, with parents permission.
Reality is so inconvenient.
As far as I know, there weren’t centralized birth records, so it was at the discretion of the Militia Captain who was old enough to fight. The Captain could disarm chronic drunks, the senile or mentally deranged. It was a system based on common-sense judgment on the part of an older, responsible adult. Of course, you won’t see that written down in any lawbook.
There are anecdotal tales of 12 years old boys fighting.
Historical precedent indeed.
“The Captain could disarm chronic drunks, the senile or mentally deranged. ”
Where in the world do you get that from ?
The power of “capitains” in the militia was much as it is today – it is power over those in the military while on duty.
Outside the Civil war reconstruction era the US has NOT had “militia” roaming te streets enforcing criminal law in this country.
And Prior to the civil war there was little in the way of a police force anywhere in this country.
Widespread policing did not become commonplace in the US prior to the late 19th and early 20th century.
While there is SOME historical evidence that our founders TEMPORARILY disarmed drunks until the sobered up.
I am not aware of any evidence of 18th century laws targeting the senile or mentaly deranged.
Again special handling of mental health issues really did not start until the late 19th century and the only positive thing that can be said about our earlyt dealings with mental health is that more than 100 years later there is very little evidence we are doing any better.
The operation of our society had nearly always been rooted in the comon sense judgement of older expereinced an responsible adults.
Out Legal system HAS NOT. While out laws were for the most part CREATED by older experienced responsibile adults.
We did NOT create the ad hoc legal system rooted in common sense experince and older responsible adults.
We did not do so DELIBERATELY – because government, laws and rights are NOT the true operations of society.
They are a LIMITED domain that exists to SECURE our rights such that the remained of the common sense experienced based system is free to work its magic.
The critical operative word is FREE.
Law is a system of restrictions on freedom and must be limited to ONLY those NECESCARY to protect the rights an freedom of all.
Prosperity, rising standard of living, societal improvement REQUIRE government, But they ALSO require the maximum of freedom that govenrment can allow while protecting fundimental rights.
It should be self evident to anyone with the slightest knowledge of history that human standard of living improved at an almost non existant rate for the majority of 300,000 years of human existance, and then suddenly within the past 500 hundred specifically in those areas that adopted western enlightenment values of individual liberty, limited government and self government – the human conditition improved exponentially in very short order.
We have a very good idea what works and what does not.
And whether you like it or not societal administration by government based on common sense and experience in older responsible adults does not actually work much better than anarchy.
the evidence regarding the revolution is that people of all ages served without the permission of parents.
Regardless that is NOT the standard provided by the 2nd amendment.
Contemporanious with the revolution children were EXPECTED to develop proficiency with firearms fairly early.
By the time they were 16 in many states they were REQUIRED to own a firearm and REQUIRED to know how to use it.
Reality is inconvenient – for those of you on the left.
You are prone to read Everything titled and ass backwards, which is PRECISELY what the law and constituton do NOT mean what some politically biased group today tries to argue, but what those who wrote the laws said they meant. Those of you who “read the law or constitution” differently are free to write new law or amend the constitution and if you succeed then going forward that law or amendment will be understood as YOU intended.
I would separately note that the militia clause in the 2nd amendment does not define or limit he right to bear arms. It provides a SINGLE of many justifications for it.
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the right to self defense mentioned – but the right to posess firearms comes not merely from the 2nd and 14th amendments but also from the right to self defense. It also comes from the declaration of independences right to alter or abolish any government that becoms abusive of our rights.
The 2nd amendment is not a “rule” it is a RIGHT.
Every single individual in this country has EXACTLY the same rights as every single other individual – no exceptions.
The Government may infringe on those rights only under very narrow circumstances.
The constitution was not written for “legally trained professionals”.
I would note further that all rules do not have exceptions – if the did we would not exist.
When we find an exception to the laws of science – those laws cease to be laws.
The issue in Rahimi is NOT actually a 2nd amendment issue.
It is what is the standard the govenrment must meet to infringe on an explict fundimental constitutional right.
You can substitute Rahimi’s right to free speech, or to be secure in his property – and in fact Rahimi is fundimentally a property rights case.
The history and tradition standard is not at all vague. It isjust a different way of saying that the law and constitution and amendments each mean today exactly what thy meant at the time they were enacted. No more no less. We are not absolutely bound to the past, We are free to change the law, the constitution and its amendments anytime we wish.
But until we explicitly choose to change them – through the constitutional process for doing so, the law means what those who enacted it said, the constitution means what those who wrote it said, the amendments mean what those who ratified them said.
Anything else leaves us with out the rule of law. With a system of governance that varies from judge to judge, justice to justice, and even from Supreme Court decision to supreme court decision – in otherwords anything else is the rule of man not law.
As you note it is possible to attempt to “game” history. That has been done in the past. But such gaming usually does not last long.
We can almost always go beyond the politically biased gaming of the past by left wing nuts, to determine what the meaning that those at the time gave to what they wrote.
Law is ALWAYS about “going back” – we ALWAYS go back to the meaning of the law when it was created. That is the only way we can drive political bias out of the law.
That is the only way we can live the rule of law rather than the rule of man.
When Democrats passed the hillariously names inflation reduction act – can Trump and Republicans and the Supreme court decide it means something entirely different from what Democrats wrote and intended ? Absolutely not. They are free to repeal and replace, or just repeal. They are free to allow the law to expire. They are free to not fund parts of the law. But they are NOT free to ignore the law just because they do not like it. Because they think “that is so 2021”
All laws and constitutional provisions and amendments are understood as written by the meaning of the language they had at thge time they were written,.
That is the ONLY means by which we actually have the rule of law.
You change the law and constitution by actually changing it. Not by pretending it away or putting on your particular political cap to “interpret” it in light of the world today.
The reality is we should not make laws that are obsoleted by the future.
Kants catagorical imperative requires that our actions should be government by laws that are timeless and universal.
pbinca, unhinged Soviet Democrat gun hating police state fascist tried out this line:
All you have to do is read Justice Thomas’ dissent in Rahimi to see his unhinged zealotry take over when it comes to the 2A rights. (I define zealotry as becoming divorced from common sense in pursuit of a cause).
Ah, there you have it, the unhinged Soviet Democrat zealotry that their police state fascists like pbinca cosplay emulating Justice Questioning Birthing Person Jackson, bemoaning the Bruen decision written by Thomas prevents judges like her legislating police state fascist Soviet Democrat ideology from the bench to put Soviet Democrats’ “reasonable common-sense gun laws” above Second Amendment rights.
These are the “common sense gun laws” in force in the blood soaked Soviet Democrat ran jurisdictions like DC, IL, Maryland, etc – where their murder rate is well above the national murder rate. This is what being completely unhinged and divorced from reality and common sense – along with from the Constitution – looks like: pbinca on display.
Police state fascists like pbinca (almost certainly California?) and the Questioning Birthing Person Justice Jackson he is emulating apparently aren’t aware that states WITHOUT their zealous gun banning “reasonable common-sense gun laws” (quoting the Justice who can’t figure out what a woman is) have murder rates less than HALF the murder rates of their blood soaked Soviet Democrat states with those laws.
For decades an American has been able to walk down the streets in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc with a legally owned belt fed machine gun in their hands and a pistol on each hip because those states refuse to have pbinca’s zealous gun banning laws. And yet their murder rates are not only at least two thirds lower than the blood soaked Soviet Democrat states whose fascist gun laws he wants applied by judges. They’re murder rates are about the same and sometimes lower than the Canadian provinces they border.
Does pbinca have an explanation for the difference in murder rates?
So much for facts and reality supporting police state fascist Soviet Democrats like pbinca and Justice Jackson and their “reasonable common-sense” gun laws.
This is an infantile (or fanatical) assertion. A legally-trained professional is aware that all rules have exceptions. Do 5-year old children have firearm ownership rights under 2A?
Now pbinca wants to go full Soviet Democrat retard. Do those 5 year olds they have voting rights? How about the right to sign a contract? Get a drivers’ license? Get married? How about just decide to drop out of school?
pbinca wants to go back centuries to King George, when when despots and tyrants got to say who was allowed to have the weapons of the day and who was not, depending on whether they supported the tyrant or not.
Dear Mr. Turley, I wonder if the Left will start singing the praises of Justice Thomas now? I
The Rahimi decision showed the inherent flaw in Bruen and Justice Barrett made it clear it was a problem to use the Bruen test. Like the Roe, it was wrongly decided.
Yep, Row was wrong. Maybe the only intelligent thing you have ever said here.
Roe*
I told you Bruen was garbage law. And there will be more garbage rulings on both sides of it in the future.
I think only Thomas applied the Bruen test and he was a dissenting minority of one. Under the new rule there is no need to find a fitting historical analogue. Instead a restriction can be justified if it is consistent with the PRINCIPLES of past regulation as determined by judges. That is bery open ended. In that sense, Bruen has been silently overruled.
Bruen has been silently overruled.
Until the next ruling.
“I think only Thomas applied the Bruen test and he was a dissenting minority of one. “
What???
Every single opinion applies Bruen to either the success or the defeat of the case.
No they didn’t. They quietly abandoned the historical analogue test. Only Thomas applied it. If you read the concurrences this becomes obvious.
I read every one of them. And they ALL talked about Bruen. They didnt apply the Bruen test with the same conclusion as Thomas.
Helluva time for buyers remorse.
They talked about it but did not apply it. Thomas is right that there was no historical analogue with a similar justification and burden, which is what Bruen demanded. Instead the court discerned a principle cobbled together from surety and affray, neither of which was relevantly similar to the law at issue here.
“They talked about it but did not apply it.”
I get so tired of arguing with people who wish to just make shit up.
This is from the OPINION OF THE COURT
Under our precedent, the appropriate analysis involves considering
whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles
that underpin the Nation’s regulatory tradition. Bruen, 597 U. S., at
26–31. When firearm regulation is challenged under the Second
Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Bruen, 597 U. S., at 24.
In your world, the Court said they HAVE TO apply Bruen to this question, and didn’t.
Ok, you’re right, the sky is not blue.
Gorsuch
So, in this facial challenge, the question becomes whether that law, in at least some of its applications, is consistent with historic firearm regulations. To prevail, the government need not show that the current law is a “‘dead ringer’” for some historical analogue. Ante, at 8 (quoting Bruen, 597 U. S., at 30). But the government must establish that, in at least some of its applications, the challenged law “impose[s] a comparable burden on the right
of armed self-defense” to that imposed by a historically recognized regulation. Id., at 29; see ante, at 7. And it must show that the burden imposed by the current law “is comparably justified.” Bruen, 597 U. S., at 29; see ante, at 7.
Feel free to say they incorrectly applied Bruen, but saying they didn’t is just patently FALSE. Res ipsa loquitur
In fact, I count 145 times that they “didn’t” apply Bruen LMAO
The question is whether they are applying the historical analogue test of Bruen. They are not. Instead they are saying that a law will be upheld if it is consistent with a principle they discern in past practice, regardless of whether they can find a single historical analogue. They cobbled together their rationale here by combining surety and affray, neither of which standing alone was a valid historical analogue, as Thomas shows. Yes, they look to history, but not in the way Bruen demanded.
Yes, they look to
historyBruen, but not in the way Bruen demanded.“impose[s] a comparable burden on the right
of armed self-defense” to that imposed by a historically recognized regulation.
” Like the Roe, it was wrongly decided.”
Like Roe, George?. Have you read what RBG said about Roe? I suppose not. Mixing Bruen and Roe makes your claim weaker. You are better off not adding complexity to your comments, as complexity requires greater thought.
Pretty sure the idiot Svelaz misspoke. Because he’s an idiot.
I’m sure he meant to say Dobbs, but as usual, he was in too big of a hurry to blurt out something stupid.
That’s why I quickly congratulated him on his Freudian slip. First time he’s ever been right.
Let’s not forget though that he predicted that Rahimi was “likely to be upheld”. LMAO
Argued with me about it for 2 days.
8-1 beatdown.
“Pretty sure the idiot Svelaz misspoke. Because he’s an idiot.”
Waters, you keep proving that time and again, but George cannot reflect on his position. You might be giving him too much credit by alluding to the possibility of a Freudian Slip, which requires more intelligence than George has.
Time to move to Canada – latest Rasmussen poll has Trump leading Biden by 9% in two-way matchup, and by 10% in 5 man field.
Is it possible that RFK Jr will finish in second place?
1) The polls do not take into account potential cheating. We saw that in 2020.
2) There are doubts that Biden will be the Democrat candidate.
S. Meyer,
If they do replace Biden, what kind of spin is that going to look like?
Upstate, they already make Joe Biden the most outstanding President since George Washington. There isn’t much further they can go except to say Biden wrote the Constitution. Some lefties like George will believe it.
“… an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” ~ Chief Justice John Roberts
No conviction, no proffering evidence, no trial; just disarm and deny 2A rights. And herein lies the problem: We live in a time when the DOJ labels parents at school board meetings as potential threats, a time when the Federal Government has stated the biggest domestic threat is white Christian Nationalists; and without proffering evidence or presenting a case. This case will be used as a cudgel against anyone that dares to speak out against open borders, against teachers encouraging gender dysphoria, against anyone questioning election integrity.
Father Patrick Reidy, a catholic priest, has been hired as a clerk for Brett Kavanaugh starting in October. He currently teaches law at Notre Dame.
In his research, Father Pat explores the intersection of property law and religion. Two principal inquiries guide his research:
(1) how legal institutions comprehend religion when evaluating property claims, owners, and instruments.
(2) how property doctrines and devices enable, or inhibit, religious practice.
While contributing to private law theory, Father Pat also seeks to address practical questions faced by faith communities in their ownership of real and personal property.
What could possibly go wrong !!!!!
Nothing says separation of church and state quite like a priest clerking for a Supreme Court judge.
Obviously it is not good enough for Leonard Leo to install practicing catholics as SCOTUS judges.
He now wants to install actual priests.
He wants to get the court back to the good old days of the 12th century Inquisition.
He wants to get the court back to the good old days of the 12th century Inquisition.
By the same logic Pedo Joe and the Soviet Democrats want to move in with the hajji Muslim terrorists in the Middle East… perhaps all the way back to their original crusades in the 7th century that ended at the Battle of Tours not to far from Paris.
And maybe Pedo Joe and the Soviet Democrats only want to go back to Hitler’s Germany less than a century ago.
Same logic.
Look at this one. Pretending he doesnt approve of pedophilia.
Look at this one. Pretending he doesnt approve of pedophilia.
Look at these Soviet Democrats and their Anonymous cowards who partner with and gratefully receive the support and money of the unionized public school teachers and their unions.
The ones where the rate of pedophilia by those unionized Biden teachers in public schools makes the pedophilia and tolerance of it in the Catholic systems almost look normal in comparison: one child in six the victim of pedophile union teachers at least once during their public school years.
Soviet Democrats are perfectly fine with pedophilia when it’s their pedophiles.
Harvey Weinstein: on the open door policy for both the Clinton and Obama White House for both eight year terms, despite their Secret Service close protection teams warning them their besty Harv was a serial rapist and pedophile they were allowing to be near their daughters. The presidents approve.
Unionized public school teachers and their unions that protect and hide their pedophiles in public schools
And of course, Pedo Joe, The Kiddy Fondler In Chief and famous for his Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Showers.
https://www.nheri.org/child-abuse-of-public-school-private-school-and-homeschool-students-evidence-philosophy-and-reason/
This is obviously pay back from Kavanaugh for the church paying off his credit card debt.
When he was on the District Court and Appeals Court his financial disclosures revealed credit card debt of $200,000. During this period he never had more than $10,000 in the bank, and his net worth was never more than $92,000.
When he was nominated for SCOTUS his debts mysteriously disappeared. He never revealed how he paid off the debt.
He also bought a home worth $1,200,000 when he had only $10,000 in the bank. That has never been explained.
Now we know.
The church paid off his debts and now in return he hires a priest as a clerk.
The Catholic Church basically purchased a position of influence in SCOTUS.
Riiiiiight
It is dangerous and irresponsible to question the integrity of our justice system
——-Joe Biden
“He also bought a home worth $1,200,000 when he had only $10,000 in the bank. That has never been explained.”
Now do Biden’s homes.
Nothing says “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. Civics: some children found it so hard in school that they just muddled through.
But nothing says those favored words of Soviet Democrats who love and support hajji Muslim terrorists in Gaza while hating Catholics and Jews quite like FDR’s Kluxxer SCOTUS Justice, Hugo Black and his dissenting opinion in ONE case because he hated Catholics more than Jews and almost as much as he hated black Americans.
Why do Soviet Democrat Anonymous cowards leave that part out?
With the questionable morals of Brett it fits that a member of the largest pedophile sex ring in the world would clerk for him.
Looking on the bright side, Reidy will have less contact with altar boys.
Yawn
I don’t think Kavanaughs morals are questionable! I think it’s pretty obvious that was a smear hit job by leftist kooks. Try again. How did you see Ginsberg and her baby killing atrocities?
With the questionable morals of Brett it fits that a member of the largest pedophile sex ring in the world would clerk for him.
With the complete lack of absence of any morals on the part of President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Showers, whose intern came forward with contemporary witnesses from the day of the event to say he raped her, and gave tens of thousands of dollars to his drug addict pervert son to buy underage Russian whores and drugs, the man known as Pedo Joe The Public Kiddy Fondler In Chief…
Why would any Soviet Democrat, Anonymous coward or not, ever vote for President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Showers to continue being The Pedo In Chief?
And why would any Soviet Democrat, coward or not, either belong to or accept support and money from the actual largest pedophile sex ring in the world: the public school teachers and the unions that protect them. Where one in six children are sexually abused by those Soviet Democrat supporters and pedophile ring members during the time they spend in public school?
Soviet Democrats and their Marxist Useful Idiot supporters and voters: there must always be one set of morals, rules, and standards for them – and a completely different set of rules for those they accuse of doing what their politicians, judges, and supporters have done. They wear it like it should be a badge of honor.
https://www.nheri.org/child-abuse-of-public-school-private-school-and-homeschool-students-evidence-philosophy-and-reason/
Our gutless twits continue with silly childish, crude, anonymous posts. Have the courage you think you have and post by name.
Even though most if not all of the chosen screen names here
aren’t the person’s actual name, and are thus ‘anonymous’ in their own ways.
It’s really about the content, and the intent. Some are certainly better than others.
The democrats have accepted Hunter’s verdict by a jury. Of course the democrats could have cried fixed, rigged, kangaroo court, unfair judge and jury, and they didn’t. And Hunter will have to pay for it one way or another. On the other hand the Trump cult feels that there is nothing wrong with someone who has been convicted of 34 felony counts but is free to golf, hold rallies shows himself to be a raving lunatic on social media attacking prosecutors, juries, and judges. And seem to think Hunter is more than a threat than someone who said his uncle went to MIT, therefore he’s smart too.
Or someone who said his uncle was eaten by cannibals
The Dems know it’s just for show.
They’re part of the act.
As are you.
The photo of Roger Staubach shows him not in a Cowboys uniform. The dark jersey could be part of a Cowboys uniform, but the gold helmet could only be Navy.
I google-searched the image and found that it was taken during the game versus the Maryland Terrapins in 1964. Then it dawned on me that I was at that game! And I imagine that Bill Belichick was there, too. I think he & I were in the same school.
Out of all the nonsense that gets posted here – including my nonsense, your post is actually really cool! Thanks!
One starts with the record and follows the evidence wherever it leads.
Jon do you still think there is a RULE OF LAW in the USA?
Lighteredknot says: Nope no rule of law. I would allege If there were; then Obama, Biden, Clapper, Brennen, NIA Dir, NSA, DOJ, AG, FBI, Comey, and some agents, Schiff, Nadler, 51 e et al signers, etc, would have had tribunal hearings at GITMO for allegedly attempting a coup against DT.
And the other CRIMES…drugs, prostitutes, bribery, etc…. DOJ going to EVER slow walk on of those Crimes?
Democrats Illegal got Trump’s tax records, illegally jail people around Trump, Charge him with madeup crimes, fine him UNLIKE anyone in HISTORY…and STILL THE GOP continues to FUND Fascist Democrats!!!
Facists are known for many things; giving people jury trials with well established due process rules is not one of them.
Well established due process like facing your accuser and specificity in the charges against you, and anonymity in the jury? Those the processes you were speaking of, Metamucil?
The only reason Trump did not know the charges is that he is too stupid to read any of the trial documents.
? wow…. just wow… difficult to take any of these anon or not posters seriously as thinking human beings…. i seriously have a problem figuring out just WHAT they think they accomplish…. don’t give a shit about Bad Orange Man, but these TDS victims are, um, weird… like some of the ‘anti-semetic’, racist posters who go nuts, i figure they HAVE to be sockpuppets stoking the appearance of some sort of widespread, whacked-out opposition… but then again, libtards are quite capable of astounding incoherence…
^^^^too stupid
Sammy, did you see former NY governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said on Bill Maher’s Real Time, “That case, the attorney general’s case in New York, frankly, should have never been brought.”
Cuomo continued: “If his name was not Donald Trump and if he wasn’t running for president. I’m the former AG in New York. I’m telling you, that case would have never been brought. And that’s what is offensive to people. And it should be!”
“Because if there’s anything left…it’s belief in the Justice system!”
The case was such a load of crap, even sane, traditional liberal Democrats see it was a load of crap.
Except you fascist leftist cultists.
Justice Samuel Alito was not present for a second day in a row as the justices handed down opinions in the Supreme Court’s courtroom Friday.
The Supreme Court has not responded to questions about his absence.
Is Alito holding out for better gifts than Thomas?
This is getting interesting !!!
He was picking up his wife’s summer flags from the dry cleaner.
He is out flag shopping.
Might be out spitting at passing cars with his wife Frau Alito
Alito is fvcking your wife, while you are here jerking off.
Every Person on Planet Earth knows that NO Biden is going to jail. Just like Menendez isnt’ going to jail or the 1000 of other CRIMINAL DEMOCRATS
Anyone go to jail for the Russian Hoax Conspiracy, the BIGGEST Crime in US history!
Meanwhile Trump will be fined another $1/2 Billion for a CRIME with NO VICTIM!
Time to Jail Criminal Fascist Democrats from across government by the 1000’s…congress, judges, DA, AG, DOJ, FBI, etc…for LONG SENTENCES!
guyventner said: “Just like Menendez isnt’ going to jail”
I hope you are correct. Since Menendez continues to run for Senate seat from NJ as an independent, against the officially nominated Demon, that would mean that GOP nominee Curtis Bashaw may actually have some realistic chance to be elected.