home.social

#clarencethomas — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #clarencethomas, aggregated by home.social.

  1. Great passage from #Sotomayor: "Under [#ClarenceThomas] approach, the legislatures of today would be limited not by a distant generation’s determination that such a law was unconstitutional, but by a distant generation’s failure to consider that such a law might be necessary. ... #Rahimi 13/

  2. On to the concurrence by #Sotomayor and joined by #Kagan. Sotomoayor emphasizes that she still maintains #Bruen was wrongly decided. But, even under Bruen, #Rahimi is an easy case - prohibiting adjudicated domestic abusers from possessing guns is, under any sense of analogical reasoning, analogical to historical laws regulating firearms possession and use. #ClarenceThomas tries to argue that any difference between historical and today's laws makes them disanalogous. That's ridiculous. 12/

  3. Now at the part of the #Rahimi opinion that explains where the Court thinks the lower court, the Fifth Circuit, and the dissent by #ClarenceThomas both err. Both insist on a historical twin to justify a law disarming those who pose a credible threat of domestic violence, when what is required is an analogue. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit went out of its way to make up a conflict between the domestic violence law and the Constitution.

    This criticism of the Fifth Circuit is key. 8/

  4. What seriously pisses me off about #ClarenceThomas’s dissenting opinion is that he’s basically arguing that we can’t use the #precedent English #law to TAKE AWAY individuals’ #GunRights, but guess what? That’s exactly what they did in #Dobbs. They took away #WomensRights to #ReproductiveHealthcare based on a bunch of bullshit.

    #Rahimi #Bruen #Roe #SCOTUS

  5. In this decision, #ClarenceThomas uses the #Bruen “historical parallel” standard. He says that the #DangerousPersons categorization in English law granted individuals the right to bear arms for the purpose of protecting themselves AGAINST dangerous persons, but does not grant the government the right to take guns away from dangerous persons & so it doesn’t apply.

    #SCOTUS #GunControl #law

    Rahimi ruling:
    supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pd
    (Thomas dissent begins on p.72)

  6. #Rahimi continued to challenge the #law, & the (insanely #conservative #ActivistCourt] US Court of Appeals for the #5thCircuit reheard his case after #SCOTUS#Bruen ruling in which Justice #ClarenceThomas established a test for #GunLaws in his opinion: new restrictions on ownership MUST have a parallel in American HISTORY.

    The unanimous 5th Circuit panel found that Rahimi was among those whose right to a weapon is protected by the #SecondAmendment.

    #GunControl

  7. A #Texas court found that #Rahimi had “committed family violence” & that such violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” It issued a protective order [aka #RestrainingOrder] that suspended Rahimi’s #GunLicense, prohibited him from having #guns & warned him that possessing a #firearm while the order remained in effect might be a federal #felony.
    
Rahimi later violated the protective order & was involved in 5 shootings between Dec 2020 & Jan 2021.

    #SCOTUS #law #GunControl #ClarenceThomas

  8. @timo21 it depends because #Bruen says no-ish, #Rahimi says yes-ish. Basically, IMO, this is good because it didn’t rule that domestic abusers have an unfettered right to #guns, but it doesn’t clear up how to devise, apply or enforce any given federal or state #GunRegulation.

    #SCOTUS #law #ClarenceThomas #GunControl #DomesticViolence

  9. After #Bruen, multiple lawsuits involving #GunRegulations were filed.

    In his #Rahimi dissent, #ClarenceThomas writes:

    “…if the #SecondAmendment right was historically understood to allow an ofcl to disarm anyone he deemed 'dangerous,' it may follow that modern Congresses can do the same...

    “…Yet, historical context compels the opposite conclusion. The Second Amendment stems from English resistance against 'dangerous' person laws.”

    #SCOTUS #law #2A

  10. Note on #Rahimi:

    #ClarenceThomas wrote the majority in NYSRPA v. #Bruen & was the sole dissent in today’s decision.

    Bruen’s ruled a #NewYork #law was unconstitutional & that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by #2A.

    #SCOTUS said states are allowed to enforce "#ShallIssue" permitting, where #ConcealedCarry applicants must satisfy criteria, like #BackgroundChecks, but "#MayIssue" systems using "arbitrary" evaluations by local authorities are unconstitutional.

    #law

  11. Note on #Rahimi:

    #ClarenceThomas wrote the majority in NYSRPA v. #Bruen & was the sole dissent in today’s decision.

    Bruen’s ruled a #NewYork #law was unconstitutional & that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by #2A.

    #SCOTUS said states are allowed to enforce "#ShallIssue" permitting, where #ConcealedCarry applicants must satisfy criteria, like #BackgroundChecks, but "#MayIssue" systems using "arbitrary" evaluations by local authorities are unconstitutional.

    #law

  12. Note on #Rahimi:

    #ClarenceThomas wrote the majority in NYSRPA v. #Bruen & was the sole dissent in today’s decision.

    Bruen’s ruled a #NewYork #law was unconstitutional & that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by #2A.

    #SCOTUS said states are allowed to enforce "#ShallIssue" permitting, where #ConcealedCarry applicants must satisfy criteria, like #BackgroundChecks, but "#MayIssue" systems using "arbitrary" evaluations by local authorities are unconstitutional.

    #law

  13. Note on #Rahimi:

    #ClarenceThomas wrote the majority in NYSRPA v. #Bruen & was the sole dissent in today’s decision.

    Bruen’s ruled a #NewYork #law was unconstitutional & that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by #2A.

    #SCOTUS said states are allowed to enforce "#ShallIssue" permitting, where #ConcealedCarry applicants must satisfy criteria, like #BackgroundChecks, but "#MayIssue" systems using "arbitrary" evaluations by local authorities are unconstitutional.

    #law

  14. Note on #Rahimi:

    #ClarenceThomas wrote the majority in NYSRPA v. #Bruen & was the sole dissent in today’s decision.

    Bruen’s ruled a #NewYork #law was unconstitutional & that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by #2A.

    #SCOTUS said states are allowed to enforce "#ShallIssue" permitting, where #ConcealedCarry applicants must satisfy criteria, like #BackgroundChecks, but "#MayIssue" systems using "arbitrary" evaluations by local authorities are unconstitutional.

    #law

  15. Decision on the #gun rights case:

    U.S. v. #Rahimi

    #SCOTUS upholds the federal statute.
    8-1 #ClarenceThomas dissented

    This is a #2A case, about whether individuals who are guilty of #DomesticAbuse can have access to #guns.

    When an individual has been found to be a threat that individual may be temporarily disarmed.

    Guns may be taken from people who are under #DomesticViolence #RestrainingOrders.

    This was the FINAL opinion of the day.

    #law #Bruen

  16. Failure to disclose stuff they're *required* to disclose seems to be a theme among right-wing judges, doesn't it? First #ClarenceThomas, now #MatthewKacsmaryk commondreams.org/news/kacsmary