Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

Source.

‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’

Here she is.

She has a “rich cultural heritage.”

Judge Darkeh is a child of an immigrant father and a first-generation American mother. Her father, George Komla Darkeh, was born and raised in Ghana, West Africa. “He came to New York in the 1960s to attend Columbia University and to work at the United Nations,” she said. Her mother, Shirley Elise (nee Lowe) Darkeh was born in Brooklyn after her family immigrated from St. Vincent and Barbados. Judge Darkeh’s parents met a party in NYC, at the home of a UN diplomat. Two years later they married, started a family and moved to Long Island. 

“I was born in the United States — Brooklyn, New York, in fact — and I am proud to be an American, but I have always understood that America is a rich and vibrant place because of all of the people, from different places, who settled here and who expressed who they are and where they came from in their everyday lives.

But with no respect for God-given rights to self defense or the liberties of a free man. That sort of cultural heritage.

Now, reddit/Firearms gives us good reason to try her for treason.

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.”

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it”. See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

28 is U.S. Code § 454. Practice of law by justices and judges

Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908.)

The USDC are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislativemode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (the USDC IS NOT a true United States court established under Article III!); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

But all of that relies on good men doing righteousness, and that isn’t going to happen in New York. If the SCOTUS had any guts, they would have dealt with this sort of denial of the 2A long, long ago, and would be dealing with it currently with the AWBs in Illinois and Maryland. But they have no guts. They have run scared of this issue for a very long time.

Funny, that. Sotomayor has no problem telling the lower courts off when she wants to. It seems that everyone else on the supreme court is a coward.

It would be good if the SCOTUS had a way of censuring lower courts and judges, and perhaps they do. But they would have to actually exercise that prerogative, and it takes more than cowards to do that.

Finally, this touches fingers with the whole issue of immigrants and immigration, and how they don’t bring the same value system to America. They bring the value system from the country they left. This is especially dangerous when it’s a judge. It will just take more time to work its way through the process with immigrants who vote.

See the point?

Americans have been making their own firearms since the founding of the country. The SCOTUS needs to get this one right, or else they relegate themselves to the trash heap of history. The communists already disregard what they don’t like out of the SCOTUS. When they lose the rest of the base, it’s a short hop and a skip to everyone just completely ignoring them. They have no reason to go to work with that kind of reputation. They should just stay home.

You’d think that at least her clerks would have prepared her better than this.

And here’s Justice Jackson: “And when, you know, ‘function’ is defined, it’s really not about the operation of the thing. It’s about what it can achieve, what it’s being used for. So I see Congress as putting function in this. The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.”

Not even the Navy’s Phalanx is capable of that rate of fire (4500 Rounds Per Minute).

Maybe there’s a quad gun that can approach that rate, but still, 4500 RPM × 4 = 18000, and 18000 RPM / 60 seconds per minutes = 300 RPM. So, I don’t know of anything that can accomplish 800 rounds per second.

Can you imagine trying to hold a gun on target at that rate of fire?

But hey, I want one!

Amazing.

Justice Barrett asks about the difference between bump firing and bump stocks

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Jackson says guns with bump stocks can fire 800 rounds a second

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

The government says that a rifle without a bump stock can only shoot about 60 rounds per minute

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Jerry Miculek is laughing.

Justice Jackson asks why the NFA doesn't ban guns that can fire as fast as machine guns. Cargill says because that's not what the law says

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Kagan says that with a bump stock, you can hold the trigger and bullets come out. Cargill says that's incorrect; bump stocks don't alter the trigger at all

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Kagan says that with a bump stock, you can hold the trigger and bullets come out. Cargill says that's incorrect; bump stocks don't alter the trigger at all

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Jackson is asking why the chemical reaction after the trigger is pulled isn't the single function that causes the gun to fire automatically. Like all of Jackson's other arguments, Cargill says that is also incorrect

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Good Lord! So the FedGov is relying not just on the communists on the court, but the general stupidity as well.

I listened to the arguments in Cargill before the SCOTUS for a few minutes. I’m out of time with this and cannot devote more to it. I’ll embed Mark Smith when he comes out with an analysis of it.

They’re focused on procedural issues, and nothing more. There is nothing in the arguments or even the attorney presentations dealing with the legality of the ATF just making up rules out of whole cloth.

Prediction: They will issue a ruling addressing the minutia of the procedural rules and punt this back down to the lower courts. They will avoid the issue entirely and thus free and exonerate themselves of holding anyone in the FedGov accountable.

Finally, the attorney for the plaintiff absolutely blew it. His presentation was awful, his speech stammering and stuttering, and he was slow on the responses, wasting time in his presentation.

And never forget. You have Trump to thank for this.

I don’t know what the SCOTUS will do. I suspect the two “conservative” women on the court, Roberts and Barrett, will side with the FedGov. If that’s the case, then there’s pain ahead because the ATF will use this to reinterpret semi-automatic weapons as machine guns and demand registration, tax stamp, and ATF approval of all semiautomatic firearms, which is what they want anyway.

Oh, and never forget that you have Trump to thank for this. And also, never forget that the FBI wouldn’t let the ATF examine the weapons after Las Vegas and it was never demonstrated that Paddock used bump stocks.

Recall that I said that the SCOTUS is running from semiautomatic weapons ban cases like a screaming scared little girl? Right. This panel has no problem running roughshod over Heller and Bruen. They couldn’t care less what the SCOTUS has said.

As you know, other states have stepped up to offer troops to secure the Texas border. That’s a good thing since Abbot has a habit of folding like a cheap suit under pressure.

Instapundit links an analyst who says it isn’t as clear as folks are making it out to be that the SCOTUS has given the final word on anything.

“The Court’s order vacated an injunction previously entered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that had prohibited the Government from damaging or destroying Texas’ wire. The Supreme Court’s order has been the subject of widespread and sometimes fiery commentary. However, the press and commentators are misanalysing the order. Governor Abbott and Texas are still free to prevent the feds from cutting their wire. The Supreme Court’s order does not forbid that. The press is misleading you. . . . The reason that the press and other commentators and critics are incorrect is that they apparently fail to understand the limited effect of vacating an injunction. After the Supreme Court’s order vacating the injunction, the status quo was the same as it was prior to the TRO ever being entered: There is no court order prohibiting the Government from taking down the wire AND there likewise is no Supreme Court order or opinion saying that the Government had a right to take down the wire. Nor is there an order by any court that Texas cannot protect its own property, namely the concertina wire.”

I don’t think it much matters. Either Texas will fold or they will hold fast. As for the SCOTUS, I expected nothing different from them. With AWB laws being enacted nationwide by the blue states, the SCOTUS has been running from semi-automatic weapons ban cases for months now. The two establishment women on the court – Barrett and Roberts – will nearly always side with the progs as we have now seen. The lower courts are running roughshod over Heller and Bruen and the SCOTUS doesn’t seem to care enough to stop it.

If that’s true, then why should Texas listen to the SCOTUS on this matter? The FedGov only wants control over this area in order to facilitate the foreign invasion.

As for the NG troops, here’s a warning. Be armed or go home. And that means be under arming orders, with weapons an ammunition and the authority to use them.

I had previously told you that I had as much use for the fourth circuit as I do for the muck between my toes.

And just to be clear, there is no reason at all for the supreme court to wait to hear a case like this since it’s going on all over the country now. As I said before, they’re running from it like little girls. Or maybe they want to do the bidding of the communists and wait for the makeup of the supreme court to change. To accomplish that, they would need the help of the two supposedly constitutional women on the court – Barrett and Roberts.

So here is Mark Smith. He takes a fairly realistic view of things.

Here is Washington Gun Law, where he takes a slightly better view of what’s possible, perhaps too rosy.

Here is Jared in an inexplicably optimistic view of things.

So I set each up with the little preview because I think Jared may miss the point.  This was a case seeking a preliminary injunction, and no final ruling has been made.  I think the other two analyses are a bit closer to the truth.

I think it will be hard to get SCOTUS review of this because they are just that stolid and slow to react – and also because of the chief justice.  To be sure, this was seeking a preliminary injunction, but it must be remembered that the decisions already written on this assesses the probability of success before these courts.

They may delay the final rulings for another two or three years, or more, but there won’t be another outcome than the one you’ve already witnessed.  So even if they don’t, it makes perfect sense for the SCOTUS to take this up now.  One wonders what they’re waiting for – perhaps another supreme court justice to die with a pillow over his face like Scalia?

Judge Frank Easterbrook is a so-called “law and order conservative.”  Let me translate for you.  That’s the same thing as the communists on the alleged other side of the isle.  Just like AG Barr, who argued in defense of Lon Horiuchi.

In America, it’s always easy to detect a communist.  Just look at his position on the second amendment.