Hmmm. Looks to me like what they’re really trying to do is hope for a death or retirement on the Supreme Court so they can try again for the result they want.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Hmmm. Looks to me like what they’re really trying to do is hope for a death or retirement on the Supreme Court so they can try again for the result they want.
{ 3 comments }
Looks to me like contempt.
My recollection was that they were specifically ordered to provide Heller with a license for the piece in question, and have refused to do so. That’s pretty blatant.
So does the new DC policy technically obey the decision, even if for all practical purposes, they clearly aren’t following the intent of the decision? And if they obviously violate the intent of the decision, what happens?
Is that contempt? If so, how is it addressed? Does Heller or someone else refile the suit, and go through all of the process from a local court all the way up to the Supreme Court? Do you go straight to the Supreme Court? Does the mayor or some other person in DC get in trouble? Or is any penalty aimed at DC as an entity, with no particular person facing any culpability or responsibility for his part in defying the court order?
If someone now dies before they can get to their gun, as a result of the DC non-compliance compliance with the Supreme Court order, is DC open to some sort of liability issue?
Imagine a theater that, say, locks it’s fire escape doors because too many people sneak in. A fire happens and several people are killed because they couldn’t get out. One would imagine a large damage suit would follow from the families. Could DC face something like this?
And where does someone get the ego to think, "Well, the Supreme Court says I have to do this, but, nah, I know what’s best. I’ll just ignore them." Did Obama suddenly change jobs and become DC’s mayor?
Comments on this entry are closed.