Rahimi and The Roberts Court’s All New, Also Old, Second Amendment Doctrine | Amicus With Dahlia...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มิ.ย. 2024
- Another major case for the “not a loss/not exactly a win” pile this term at SCOTUS. A majority of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said what we knew all along - adjudicated domestic abusers shouldn’t hold onto second amendment rights and the guns that they are statistically, horrifyingly, apt to use to harm their intimate partners. In an 8-1 decision in United States v Rahimi, the Roberts Court looked frantically for a way to reverse out of - while still technically upholding - its bonkers extreme originalism-fueled Bruen decision from two terms ago.
This week Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Kelly Roskam, the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Later in the show, Mark and Dahlia look under the hood of Department of State v Munoz - an immigration case decided this week that Justice Sotomayor says is sewing seeds for the end of marriage equality as we know it.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)
Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Note: Captions are auto-generated by TH-cam.
Follow Amicus on TH-cam: • The Trump Indictment |...
Subscribe to Slate: / slate
Learn more: slate.com/podcasts/amicus
Follow Slate on Social:
Host Dahlia Lithwick on Twitter: / dahlialithwick
Slate on Twitter - / slate
Slate Podcasts on Twitter - / slatepodcasts
Slate on Facebook: / slate
Slate on Instagram: / slate
Best SCOTUS money can buy. Does "right to bare arms" apply to ammo? Could we make ammo illegal?
Nothing in Thomas’s jurisimprudence makes sense except in the light of his mission (mania?) to restore the authority of the black father.
Amazing video, really loved it!
While it isn't possible to say Originalism is dead when the majority of SCOTUS are dedicated to the proposition, I think it's clear that Originalism is getting very wobbly and with a questionable sense of direction. What was once a noble sounding approach has mostly been exposed as a way for Conservatives to prevent criticism of their opinions as long as they can draw the merest parallel to something that happened at any point in the distant past. And if there isn't one? They just make up some other approach and label it Textualism, Strict Constructionism, or whatever suits their mood.
Top-tier video, for sure.
At oral argument, it was clear to me that several justices are possibly gunning for Domestic Violence laws in general. They’re not ballsy enough to say “reword the VAWA to remove the sexist
Language ” because it’s too “woke” and also is the only framework we have regarding the intimacy and special nature of violence or coercion in one’s home, where women do not have a “home is my castle” rules & traditions articulation.
The “men’s rights advocates” who seek to subjugate their family members will continue to fight every step towards true equity within the law.
44:11 - I think the majority should have couched their decision more along the lines of “lawful citizens do have a right to live together” to avoid their xenophobia & not open the floodgates on people in custody they were so worried about during argument.
If Rivken - Alito conflict were only reported as much as Flaggate, Whitehouse & Durbin have more ammo & Justice Roberts would even have some cover for working WITH them to codify & enforce ethical standards & penalties.
I didn’t meant to minimize the additional burden imposed on same sex couples.
The Southern poverty law center has an explanation of the council for national policy