"In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas cited Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” He said the decision is an example of how the court’s approach to deciding these kinds of cases has led lower courts on a “journey Through the Looking Glass” during which the justices have found many “strange things.” He said that like Alice, the court has strayed far “down the rabbit hole.”
“I would hold Taylor accountable for what he actually did and uphold his conviction,” he wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, agreeing that the court’s cases in this area of the law have “veered off into fantasy land.”
Combining this with Q post 114 as LBTrumplican2 posted, it sounds like the SCOTUS is not only hinting at Q, but possibly reassuring us that the Military is the only way because they are about to confirm them being compromised...not voting in our favor.
This goes with my suspicions, SCOTUS is going to remove RvW, but may uphold the new gun laws being pushed through as well. Things will surely heat up with both decisions.
After reading through the whole opinion it becomes clear that this case is really not about gun control at all. It's about applying "categorical approach" to laws related to violent crimes to determine whether a particular crime falls under "violent crime".
The dissent by Thomas explains this very clearly, and is worth reading. Essentially, the SCOTUS has been taking this approach where instead of seeing whether a criminal committed a violent crime, they look at the crime as a category and then think about imaginary cases and decide whether the crime could have been committed without using violence. This results in absurdities such as:
First Circuit considered whether a terrorist’s conviction for
federal arson—which he committed in the course of carrying out the Boston Marathon bombings—counted as a crime of violence under §924(c). Tsarnaev and his brother intentionally detonated bombs that killed three people, including
an 8-year-old, and injured hundreds more.
Yet, the categorical-approach precedents led the First Circuit to the admittedly “counterintuitive” conclusion that federal arson resulting in death arising from a terrorist bombing was not a crime of violence.
So, the SCOTUS concluded that boston marathon bombing was not a violent crime. Makes you feel like screaming, right?
Same with the present case. The guy who was a wholesale drug dealer tried to shake down one of his retail dealers, using his gun to threaten him, ended up shooting and leaving him to bleed to death, and yet the court decided it was not a crime of violence since an imaginary criminal named Adam could have committed the same crime without using violence.
I believe this whole thing is being built up to let violent criminals like Antifa go scott free even after burning down cities and killing numerous people. I believe this is a harbinger to some bigger cases yet to come down the pipeline.
Reminds me kind of a dwi traffic ticket. These laws are clearly out of control and seek to punish those guilty of what could have happened. If you are driving under the influence of any drug, are stopped and ticketed for that offense, it should be treated as a traffic ticket not a felony as if you've maimed or killed someone. I understand there are victims in the process of driving under the influence but since when did we start putting people in prison for what could've happened and not what did happen. It's a waste of our prison beds for people with a traffic ticket. People who speed can kill also, those who drive recklessly or sleepy too but we don't put them in prison for it unless they injure someone.
The 7-2 decision united both conservative and liberal justices, though one dissenting justice compared the result to “Alice in Wonderland.” The justices said the law can’t be used to lengthen the sentences of criminals convicted of a specific attempted robbery offense.
This is my first post and I think I was able to successfully include the link!!! Anyway, this came across my phone, general left news preloaded into my phone, I don't usually read them but something lead me to check this out and I was amazed by the terms used, just seemed like I couldn't possibly be reading what I was...
I'll say this: I'm a felon who has firearms and no bullshit law will ever change that. I'll do anything I have to to protect myself and my family from all threats. This includes any citizen or government employee who is foolish enough to challenge my resolve.
From the article:
"In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas cited Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” He said the decision is an example of how the court’s approach to deciding these kinds of cases has led lower courts on a “journey Through the Looking Glass” during which the justices have found many “strange things.” He said that like Alice, the court has strayed far “down the rabbit hole.”
“I would hold Taylor accountable for what he actually did and uphold his conviction,” he wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, agreeing that the court’s cases in this area of the law have “veered off into fantasy land.”
You guys are so much better at this!!! Thanks for highlighting exactly what I was seeing!!!
Happy to help.
u/#q114
Great writeup fren.
Combining this with Q post 114 as LBTrumplican2 posted, it sounds like the SCOTUS is not only hinting at Q, but possibly reassuring us that the Military is the only way because they are about to confirm them being compromised...not voting in our favor.
This goes with my suspicions, SCOTUS is going to remove RvW, but may uphold the new gun laws being pushed through as well. Things will surely heat up with both decisions.
Very interesting news, but I get a feeling somehow we are missing something.
I highly suggest reading the whole SCOTUS opinion on this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
After reading through the whole opinion it becomes clear that this case is really not about gun control at all. It's about applying "categorical approach" to laws related to violent crimes to determine whether a particular crime falls under "violent crime".
The dissent by Thomas explains this very clearly, and is worth reading. Essentially, the SCOTUS has been taking this approach where instead of seeing whether a criminal committed a violent crime, they look at the crime as a category and then think about imaginary cases and decide whether the crime could have been committed without using violence. This results in absurdities such as:
So, the SCOTUS concluded that boston marathon bombing was not a violent crime. Makes you feel like screaming, right?
Same with the present case. The guy who was a wholesale drug dealer tried to shake down one of his retail dealers, using his gun to threaten him, ended up shooting and leaving him to bleed to death, and yet the court decided it was not a crime of violence since an imaginary criminal named Adam could have committed the same crime without using violence.
I believe this whole thing is being built up to let violent criminals like Antifa go scott free even after burning down cities and killing numerous people. I believe this is a harbinger to some bigger cases yet to come down the pipeline.
Spot on analysis and conclusion! Thanks!
Yes. Upvoat for you.
Reminds me kind of a dwi traffic ticket. These laws are clearly out of control and seek to punish those guilty of what could have happened. If you are driving under the influence of any drug, are stopped and ticketed for that offense, it should be treated as a traffic ticket not a felony as if you've maimed or killed someone. I understand there are victims in the process of driving under the influence but since when did we start putting people in prison for what could've happened and not what did happen. It's a waste of our prison beds for people with a traffic ticket. People who speed can kill also, those who drive recklessly or sleepy too but we don't put them in prison for it unless they injure someone.
Thanks for highlighting what I was seeing!!!
Sure. If you want to highlight just put an asterisk around the word or sentence you want highlighted.
It'll look like this
I am a better lurker then a poster but I will see if this works!!! Thank you!!!
It worked!!! Effen awesome!!! Thanks SemperSupra
This is my first post and I think I was able to successfully include the link!!! Anyway, this came across my phone, general left news preloaded into my phone, I don't usually read them but something lead me to check this out and I was amazed by the terms used, just seemed like I couldn't possibly be reading what I was...
Good catch!
I'll say this: I'm a felon who has firearms and no bullshit law will ever change that. I'll do anything I have to to protect myself and my family from all threats. This includes any citizen or government employee who is foolish enough to challenge my resolve.