Justices Thomas and Alito insist that the Court must hear disputes between two states. Florida v. California is a good example of why I remain unpersuaded.
Anyone else find it ironic that FLORIDA is complaining about the quality of other state's drivers?
Granted, most of the problematic drivers here are the snowbirds, driving on upper East Coast or Midwest licenses, now that Trump has driven off the Canadiens.
"Now, Alabama is asking the justices for a stay under (you guessed it) Purcell. Just to underline the sequencing here, the original district court injunctions were not issued too close to the election. The only reason why things got messed up was because of the Supreme Court’s intervention on May 11—intervention that, as Justice Sotomayor’s dissent made clear, should itself have been foreclosed by Purcell. For the Court to turn around now and invoke Purcell to allow Alabama to use a racially gerrymandered map, when it ran right over Purcell 21 days ago to wipe away a lower-court ruling blocking that map, would, in my view, only further exacerbate the appearance that the justices are playing partisan politics in these cases. That doesn’t mean that it won’t happen, alas."
This last minute argument from the state of Alabama seems ludicrous on its face...as you imply with more grace.
If the Court agrees, won't it risk looking ludicrous as well? Not to mention undignified, which I think the some of the CJ's prior comments suggests he really does care about.
I hope I am not anticipating a development in disputes between US states that will not happen. But who knows how this Supreme Court would rule if one state challenges another because it argues that the latter should respect the former’s gun laws under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, even if they conflict with its own public policies designed to protect lives and public safety? I understand that many U.S. states allow "permitless" or "constitutional" carry, meaning that anyone who can legally own a firearm under state and federal law can carry a concealed handgun in public without needing to acquire a specific state-issued permit. And they can also openly carry a long gun or a semi-automatic rifle which they legally own into a public space like a grocery store without a special permit, provided it isn't brandished in a threatening manner – whatever that “limitation” or “restraint” means in practice, since stores have their own rules about bringing guns onto their premises. So, if say Texans drive to Massachusetts to attend the graduations of their offspring at prestigious academic institutions, it might be argued they should be allowed to shop openly carrying or concealing (depending on the weapon) their weapons from Texas at Trader Joe’s or Star Market locations in the Commonwealth, or in the luxury stores along Newbury Street in Boston ? Texas might bring a suit against Massachusetts if its residents are denied this “god given right”, and/or Massachusetts a suit against Texas for allowing dangerous behavior that endangers public safety and lives in its jurisdiction. Is this another reason among the increasing number in so many diverse cases why the arguments of Justices Alito and Thomas should be rejected? The word “unpersuaded” would a very mild one, or reaction from my perspective, if this (for now hypothetical but not unthinkable) situation were to arise. Or am I being unreasonably paranoid, even in this era of "shell game" prosecutions and justifiable presumptions of "irregularity" for government officials and departments, in thinking that this potential extension of the Second Amendment, in which the nationwide rule on access to, and the locations and circumstances in which an individual can bring an automatic weapon of lethality unimaginably greater than the muskets of 250 years ago would become based on the loosest or in practice almost absence of restrictions that any one state may decide to impose?
"analogizing California’s and Washington’s (alleged) licensing practices to “one nation sending dangerous people into another.” (I’ll come back to the “facts” below.)" I did not see any comment on the "facts" as promised. While they are not necessary to the legal analysis of the case, I would have welcomed your comments. That something is amiss in California's licensing practices is suggested by your comment that the driver in question (whose immigrant status is irrelevant) could identify only one of four highway signs.
Anyone else find it ironic that FLORIDA is complaining about the quality of other state's drivers?
Granted, most of the problematic drivers here are the snowbirds, driving on upper East Coast or Midwest licenses, now that Trump has driven off the Canadiens.
"Now, Alabama is asking the justices for a stay under (you guessed it) Purcell. Just to underline the sequencing here, the original district court injunctions were not issued too close to the election. The only reason why things got messed up was because of the Supreme Court’s intervention on May 11—intervention that, as Justice Sotomayor’s dissent made clear, should itself have been foreclosed by Purcell. For the Court to turn around now and invoke Purcell to allow Alabama to use a racially gerrymandered map, when it ran right over Purcell 21 days ago to wipe away a lower-court ruling blocking that map, would, in my view, only further exacerbate the appearance that the justices are playing partisan politics in these cases. That doesn’t mean that it won’t happen, alas."
This last minute argument from the state of Alabama seems ludicrous on its face...as you imply with more grace.
If the Court agrees, won't it risk looking ludicrous as well? Not to mention undignified, which I think the some of the CJ's prior comments suggests he really does care about.
I hope I am not anticipating a development in disputes between US states that will not happen. But who knows how this Supreme Court would rule if one state challenges another because it argues that the latter should respect the former’s gun laws under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, even if they conflict with its own public policies designed to protect lives and public safety? I understand that many U.S. states allow "permitless" or "constitutional" carry, meaning that anyone who can legally own a firearm under state and federal law can carry a concealed handgun in public without needing to acquire a specific state-issued permit. And they can also openly carry a long gun or a semi-automatic rifle which they legally own into a public space like a grocery store without a special permit, provided it isn't brandished in a threatening manner – whatever that “limitation” or “restraint” means in practice, since stores have their own rules about bringing guns onto their premises. So, if say Texans drive to Massachusetts to attend the graduations of their offspring at prestigious academic institutions, it might be argued they should be allowed to shop openly carrying or concealing (depending on the weapon) their weapons from Texas at Trader Joe’s or Star Market locations in the Commonwealth, or in the luxury stores along Newbury Street in Boston ? Texas might bring a suit against Massachusetts if its residents are denied this “god given right”, and/or Massachusetts a suit against Texas for allowing dangerous behavior that endangers public safety and lives in its jurisdiction. Is this another reason among the increasing number in so many diverse cases why the arguments of Justices Alito and Thomas should be rejected? The word “unpersuaded” would a very mild one, or reaction from my perspective, if this (for now hypothetical but not unthinkable) situation were to arise. Or am I being unreasonably paranoid, even in this era of "shell game" prosecutions and justifiable presumptions of "irregularity" for government officials and departments, in thinking that this potential extension of the Second Amendment, in which the nationwide rule on access to, and the locations and circumstances in which an individual can bring an automatic weapon of lethality unimaginably greater than the muskets of 250 years ago would become based on the loosest or in practice almost absence of restrictions that any one state may decide to impose?
"analogizing California’s and Washington’s (alleged) licensing practices to “one nation sending dangerous people into another.” (I’ll come back to the “facts” below.)" I did not see any comment on the "facts" as promised. While they are not necessary to the legal analysis of the case, I would have welcomed your comments. That something is amiss in California's licensing practices is suggested by your comment that the driver in question (whose immigrant status is irrelevant) could identify only one of four highway signs.