Not SCOTUS yet, but I'm betting California appeals. The 9th District Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of the district court striking down California's ban on high capacity magazines. Trump has successfully turned the 9th Circuit, no small accomplishment. Given the current makeup of SCOTUS, even with Kennedy's tilt, they'll uphold it too. You know if Biden gets in and they get the Senate there will be an assault weapons ban (Kamala's on record favoring mandatory buyback programs), doesn't look good it will stick.

They held the mags are

typically used for lawful purposes, and are not 'unusual arms' that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment."

they also said that

(the ban) is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California.

Going to be hard to argue that AR-15s and other "assault rifles" are unusual arms since they're the most popular rifles in the country and are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/14/politics/california-federal-court-second-amendment-high-capacity-magazines/index.html

What do they need high-capacity magazines for in domestic situations, zombie hordes? Jehovah's Witnesses?

Alan C wrote:What do they need high-capacity magazines for in domestic situations, zombie hordes? Jehovah's Witnesses?

Logging maybe?

The_Piper wrote:

Alan C wrote:What do they need high-capacity magazines for in domestic situations, zombie hordes? Jehovah's Witnesses?

Logging maybe?

This video does highlight something important. A tree is a piss poor choice of cover from a modern centerfire rifle discharging full metal jacketed bullets. Put thick steel, or a mass of earth between you and any such gunfire, because even a substantial tree will not suffice. A car isn’t enough either as those types of rounds will zip through and through a Toyota, and engine blocks will shatter. Modern high velocity ammo is terrible stuff.

RS

Wow. That sounds like good advice. I hope it's not necessary anytime soon!

ETA: 'My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." —Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

Shit's about to hit the fan. If the GOP doesn't break ranks The Donald has himself another SOCTUS justice.

They're licking their chops right now. Expect a slam dunk.

Murkowski seems to have said she's against it until after the election. Heard something about Grassley too. Let's see what happens now. Wonder if you could get Romney on that train too.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if anyone other than Romney balked at ramming through a replacement nominee. The rest to a person are invertebrate supplicants.

If Trump acts now. America is fecked.

Of course he'll act now. Then Mitch will do everything he can to ram it through the Senate. This is politics as usual, despite the inevitable pearl-clutching dramatics we'll see starting tomorrow. Oh, the horror! The only difference between Trump and Obama is Trump (may) have the Senate and Obama didn't, so his late term appointment of Merrick Garland failed.

james1v wrote:If Trump acts now. America is fecked.

better get some preparation H, his pants are already down.

aban57 wrote:

Now the real question is: Which Republicans are smart? Which Republicans are gonna be in that race to be the first ones to say they're not gonna do it? To be the first ones to say 'No, this isn't right. We're gonna let the American people decide. The vacancy can sit for a coupla months after the election.'? Because, man, that's a moral stance.

Installing judges is basically the moral stance that empowered Trump - his survival as a candidate, his mandate as president. Not receiving a nominee would be seen as a moral abdication by the people who back him. These are the people who want to end abortion rights and who look forward to when Jeebus personally whisks them to the afterlife and burns the rest of us. Political norms aren't a high priority for this voting bloc, and the surviving old guard of Senate Repubs have learned that lesson.

McConnell a few hours ago:

Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.

At least in his own interpretation, the majority they got in 2016 & expanded in 2018 was a signal from Americans to "protect" the courts. He's probably right, unfortunately - so Beau's message of persuasion, above, is kinda thin, imo. It's directed at senators who've already gotten their instructions from actual voters. The left should really start directing real moral outrage at the voter base, and not at perceived contradictions in Washington. That fight was lost several years ago. Clutching pearls at what senators do is now thoroughly a 20th century art. Imo, you spit at them, you promise them defeat, and turn your attention to the Repub degenerates who actually vote each cycle, and the lazy non-Repubs who don't.

It's going to be an interesting political season, no?

My running theory is that a large chunk of liberals are perfectly ok with the types of judges the right-wing places on the federal bench. So predicting which type of voter this'll motivate more is tricky. Maybe impossible.

Anti-abortion isn't the only way these judges slant - they're also massively pro-corporate. A lot of liberals get hot in the pants thinking about that. These voters (the white suburban 'professionals' Biden is courting) can afford to get abortions in private clinics anyway, which would thrive long after any convincing repeal of Roe v Wade. And they can travel. It's a pretty interesting political season indeed. The evangelical degenerates might be at an advantage imo, when it comes to RBG-spin.

That's a good point, the old Blue/Red boundaries aren't as etched in stone as they used to be.

If Trump appoints to the Supreme Court, a future Democrat president should expand the size of the Supreme Court to counteract that appointment. Outlawing the use of the filibuster would also weaken the Rethuglicans considerably.

Biden is Catholic. All Dem presidential nominees since McGovern have had to pander to the xian right. Whatever their personal inclinations, they can only allow themselves token support for abortion rights, they can’t really make it a central platform issue, even a symbolic one. So what else is there? Corporatism. Name me one Dem nominee that has dared voice, much less championed, a reversing of the corporate dismantling of democratic power in this country. Not a single one, in my lifetime.

So... these are the candidates that thrive in national politics on both sides. The kind that secretly, or overtly, don’t mind an Alito or a Kavanaugh on the bench, also because enough of their voters don’t mind either. It’s a talking point for them, and a curse for the rest of us (who have very little actual power to change the pattern).

I mean, how hard Biden fought to make sure Thomas’s confirmation was well-served - arguably the most right-wing judge on that bench in a lifetime - should tell you everything about ideological priorities in that generation of Dems.