Blackvegetable » 22 Jan 2026, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ As his legions of Hatahs is painfully aware, Master Vegetable has been unstinting in his contempt for Bruen and Heller, two shibboleths supporting the straw temple of The Individual Right...
Since the author of the latter was found smothered under a fat kid, erect but forever breathless, the burden of generating the supportive pap for ammosexuals was placed on the intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders of Justice Free Ride Thomas....with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen.
It has become a sport since, within the junior circuits, to put SCOTUS on a spot obliging a defense of many of the absurd consequences of Free Ride's legacy, as in Rahimi. In that instance, his fellow conservatives hung him out to dry, leaving him alone to pen a churlish dissent.
Now Hawaii is back, and the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen are being highlighted.
https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/sup ... pez-hawaii
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority spent much of Tuesday morning trying to figure out how two mutually exclusive principles can both be true at the same time. One principle is that all Second Amendment cases must be judged using a bespoke legal rule that only applies to the Second Amendment. The other principle is that the right to bear arms must not be treated differently than other constitutional rights. Four years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Republican justices struck down a century-old New York law that required anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” before they could obtain a license allowing them to do so. On Tuesday, the Court heard Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii state law that appears to have been designed intentionally to sabotage Bruen.