A new CA gun law should force the SCOTUS to confront the enormity of its worst decision

[BigmanPigman]

https://www.vox.com/2022/7/25/23277211/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-sb-8-abortion-guns-california-assault-rifle-law

"Gavin Newsom’s plan to save the Constitution by trolling the Supreme Court'
A new California gun law should force the Supreme Court to confront the enormity of its worst decision in decades"

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law on Friday modeled after Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8 — the Texas law which uses private lawsuits to target abortion providers. But there’s one important difference between the two state laws: California’s new law sends these litigious bounty hunters against gun dealers who sell certain guns, including assault weapons and weapons with no serial number."

"It’s a high-stakes gambit that will test whether the Supreme Court actually meant what it said in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021), which held that because of SB 8’s unique style of enforcement, it was immune from meaningful judicial review — and thus would take effect despite very strong arguments that the law was unconstitutional at the time."

"Shortly after Jackson was decided last December, Newsom announced that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that states can dodge judicial review of unconstitutional laws. But Newsom also said that, if the Court’s Republican-appointed majority would give this power to states, then he would use it to limit access to firearms."

[unblock]

1. I don't think sb8's enforcement style is "unique" -- merely discredited and outdated

Didn't slave states offer bounties for private parties to capture black people who had escaped slavery?

[SCantiGOP]

8. Yes, and

They had the acquiescence of the Supreme Court that it was legal.

[JohnSJ]

2. Unfortunately this court will be selective deciding what laws states can dodge judicial review

of unconstitutional laws, and what they can’t judge, and I suspect we will see them use the California law as an example of what they won’t allow

The hypocritical jackasses

[hvn_nbr_2]

10. The Supreme Cult will just make up some rationale. nt

[JohnSJ]

11. Yup

[RockRaven]

3. The premise of articles like this is that the Repukes on the Extreme Court won't just say

"meh, this is different because reasons" without providing reasons, or coherent ones. Which is entirely possible if not certain. They. Are. Not. Intellectually. Honest.

[FBaggins]

4. It doesn't force SCOTUS to do anything

It probably won’t even get to them.

All the Texas gimmick did was keep the law from being blocked before it became active. That is… it didn’t “dodge constitutional review. It just delayed it. As soon as there were some actual lawsuits under that law, Roe would have effectively negated it (just as existing circuit precedent will keep any gun shop in CA from being impacted by this one)

Of course… Dobbs makes that less likely - but CA has no such advantage

[Thomas Hurt]

5. They can call this the hypocrite test case. Since when have the christofascists shied away...

from being rank hypocrites.

With all their states rights bloviating they have done, they should just refuse to hear it....we will see.

[orleans]

6. the asshole-scotus will say it was for the sanctitiy of life

& then newsom can say the same

[ShazzieB]

7. #$&?@*%!

It’s a high-stakes gambit that will test whether the Supreme Court actually meant what it said in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021), which held that because of SB 8’s unique style of enforcement, it was immune from meaningful judicial review — and thus would take effect despite very strong arguments that the law was unconstitutional at the time."

SCOTUS actually said "because of SB 8’s unique style of enforcement, it was immune from meaningful judicial review"? I don't know how that got by me at the time, but it did. And of course it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."

This bunch of renegade conservative (in)justices are downright scary. From here on out, they're going to decide whatever they feel like deciding, on any flimsy pretext whatsoever (or none at all), just because they can. That's pretty much what they did when they struck down Roe, and you know damned well they're going to do it again, as many times as they feel like it.

I wish to hell Biden would get on board with expanding the court, because I don't see any other way to protect the American people from these crazed fanatics. By the time enough of them retire or die off to appreciably change the Court’s makeup, there's no telling how much havoc they'll be able to wreak. Holy fucking crap.

[qazplm135]

9. Easy, the conservatives will say

abortion isn't protected, but guns are.

[duhneece]

12. I'd love New Mexico to adopt this tactic

Seems like a worthwhile try.

[Blue Owl]

13. K&R for visibility