Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A new CA gun law should force the SCOTUS to confront the enormity of its worst decision
https://www.vox.com/2022/7/25/23277211/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-sb-8-abortion-guns-california-assault-rifle-law"Gavin Newsom’s plan to save the Constitution by trolling the Supreme Court'
A new California gun law should force the Supreme Court to confront the enormity of its worst decision in decades"
"California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law on Friday modeled after Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8 — the Texas law which uses private lawsuits to target abortion providers. But there’s one important difference between the two state laws: California’s new law sends these litigious bounty hunters against gun dealers who sell certain guns, including assault weapons and weapons with no serial number."
"It’s a high-stakes gambit that will test whether the Supreme Court actually meant what it said in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021), which held that because of SB 8’s unique style of enforcement, it was immune from meaningful judicial review — and thus would take effect despite very strong arguments that the law was unconstitutional at the time."
"Shortly after Jackson was decided last December, Newsom announced that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that states can dodge judicial review of unconstitutional laws. But Newsom also said that, if the Court’s Republican-appointed majority would give this power to states, then he would use it to limit access to firearms."
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
It’s a high-stakes gambit that will test whether the Supreme Court actually meant what it said in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021), which held that because of SB 8’s unique style of enforcement, it was immune from meaningful judicial review — and thus would take effect despite very strong arguments that the law was unconstitutional at the time."
SCOTUS actually said "because of SB 8’s unique style of enforcement, it was immune from meaningful judicial review"? I don't know how that got by me at the time, but it did. And of course it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."
This bunch of renegade conservative (in)justices are downright scary. From here on out, they're going to decide whatever they feel like deciding, on any flimsy pretext whatsoever (or none at all), just because they can. That's pretty much what they did when they struck down Roe, and you know damned well they're going to do it again, as many times as they feel like it.
I wish to hell Biden would get on board with expanding the court, because I don't see any other way to protect the American people from these crazed fanatics. By the time enough of them retire or die off to appreciably change the Court’s makeup, there's no telling how much havoc they'll be able to wreak. Holy fucking crap.
