National US solicitor general contradicts herself in the Supreme Court during the Rahimi proceedings in regards to administrative and executive overreach

[RobMa]

Read More

 

[Stomper]

In a progressive's mind it's considered more like "having it both ways" than a contradiction.

Trying to gaslight a skeptical sitting SCOTUS Justice usually doesn't work out too well for the mealy-mouthed.

 

[RobMa]

In a progressive's mind it's considered more like "having it both ways" than a contradiction.

Trying to gaslight a skeptical sitting SCOTUS Justice usually doesn't work out too well for the mealy-mouthed.

One can only hope...

 

[RobMa]

 

[Yarome]

Some very clear statements in there I have no doubt will be cited in many pro-2A court arguments across the nation. IE... OR114.

Right out of the horses mouth, on official record in a SC case... and stating exactly what we've been fighting against!

 

[RobMa]

 

[CamoDeafie]

 

[BPOR11]

What she didn't say after "Correct" was, "We just don't care. We're going to do whatever we want."

 

[RobMa]

 

[Yarome]

What I find ironic is on one hand the gooberment is stating that once a doctrine and principle has been decided/established by the SC then it should stand and it's pointless to reargue it time and again.

Next she is stating that Heller looked at all types of historical regulations/laws/etc.... stating that Bruen is faulty because the scope of historical analogs allowed to infringe is more limited than what Heller considered to reach their final determinations.

Completely ignoring her own previous statements that Heller already DID an analysis on the broader historical records and from it... established the definitions and doctrines to be applied in 2A cases. Which... according to her own words... should stand and need not be reargued.

Whining that the scope is too limited to allow effective infringements!?!

YEAH little girl!! When you are attempting to strip away inalienable rights of the people guaranteed by a core founding document of our nation.... it SHOULD be difficult to infringe.

They simply can't stand it that they've been getting away with it for so long and were finally brought to task when Bruen reaffirmed Heller.

*Not dissimilar from the reaction you get when a child is told "no" for the first time after their parents have allowed them to run roughshod over them their whole lives.