1 dead and at least 21 wounded.

Scotus Review

Here's a list of SCOTUS' terrible recent decisions, many of which you probably hadn't heard about: -Rivas-Villegas: SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for using excessive force; (courts love to give cops every possible out) -Tahlequah v. Bond: SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for killing a man; (like the previous one, this may be somewhat justified, but it is not in the public interest for cops to have qualified immunity!) -Shoop v. Twyford: SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief; (a death row inmate can't get neurological testing to help challenge a death sentence, you know because we only punish instead of trying to figure out what happened) -Brown v. Davenport: SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief; (it doesn't matter if you were shackled in court, as if that wouldn't affect the outcome) -Shinn v. Ramirez: SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief; (the supreme court doesn't care if there is exonerating evidence, you don't get to use it in your appeal!) -Zubaydah: SCOTUS allowed the Govt to withhold information about torture on CIA black sites; (heaven forbid the world find out about CIA black sites that the world already knows about. Disgusting); -Vaello-Madero: SCOTUS denied Social Security benefits to residents of Puerto Rico; (in case you thought that PR was something other than just a colony of ours!) -Cummings: SCOTUS disallowed recovery for emotional-distress damages in civil rights lawsuits; (anti-discrimination laws are gutted because people discriminated against can't sue for emotional distress caused by the illegal discrimination) -Patel: SCOTUS stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review fact issues in immigration proceedings; (oh, you messed up on a drivers license application? No do-overs whatsoever! You know, because filling out a form incorrectly means you can't live here!) -Biden v. Missouri: SCOTUS blocked a federal vaccine mandate; (we live in a hell world full of morons) -Garland v. Gonzalez: SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants' access to a bond hearing, and specifically limits immigrant's ability to use class-action to sue the gov't (it's now easier to keep our concentration camps full) -Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez: SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants' access to a bond hearing; (gov't can keep people in border concentration camps without even a bail hearing) -FEC v. Ted Cruz: SCOTUS struck down campaign finance restrictions to enable Ted Cruz to pay himself back for loans he made to his own campaign; (awesome) -Egbert v. Boule: SCOTUS further limited a person's ability to sue federal officers (Bivens actions); (Ahhh yes, what we needed, more power for cops) -Vega v. Tekah: SCOTUS weakened enforcement of Miranda rights; (a good first step to removing any rights is removing the requirement that you be reminded of those rights) -Carson v. Makin: SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, forcing states to fund private religious schools; (no more separation of church and state, the churches get it all, babyyyyy!) -Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.: SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, allowing football coach to have public/publicized Christian prayers at football games; (your coach can make you pray!) -Denezpi: SCOTUS recognized tribal sovereignty just enough to allow a Native American defendant to be prosecuted twice for the same crime (no double jeopardy), (instead of our constantly-fucked-over Native American population getting a measure of sovereignty like they are supposed to, under the Constitution, they get double fucked) -Castro-Huerta: SCOTUS undermined tribal sovereignty by making tribal land "part of state" and allowing state to exercise jurisdiction on tribal land; (more of the above, absolutely wild) -Bruen: SCOTUS struck down NY's 100yo restriction on concealed carry to expand 2A and limit gun restrictions; (everyone join your local "well-regulated militia"....) -U.S. v. Texas: SCOTUS allowed Texas's "bounty hunter" antiabortion law to go into effect; (I'm sure there's no way that private enforcement of an issue such as abortion (when just about anything counts as an abortion) will backfire) -Dobbs: SCOTUS overruled Roe & Casey, eliminating the federal right to abortion and enabling severe (life-threatening) restrictions on abortion to go into effect; (unreal, but not unexpected) -West Virginia v. EPA: SCOTUS undermined the EPA's ability to regulate emissions and fight global warming (the thing that they were made to deal with) (aaaaand boom goes the dynamite)

TOUGH NUMBERS TOUGH GUYS

WF THOUGHTS (2/14/24).

Do you have a friendly relationship with numbers? Or, do numbers make you sick?

I like numbers. Numbers occasionally make me sick anyway.

Here are some numbers that make me want to vomit:

6- -Today is the 6th anniversary of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. The shooter killed 17 people, and another 17 were injured. We haven’t learned our lesson. The bloodshed continues.

3:30- -At approximately 3:30 this afternoon, at the end of the Super Bowl victory parade in Kansas City, there was a shooting. As I write this, the details have not been released. It has been confirmed that at least one person was killed and another twenty people- -including children- -were wounded. Those are the most important details. The surrounding circumstances are less relevant. Life will never be the same for at least 20 people and their families.

0- -That’s the number that best describes the gun laws in Missouri. Basically, there are no gun laws in Missouri.

44,000- -That’s the approximate number of gun deaths in America every single year. How can we constantly ignore such a big number? No other country has this problem.

47- -It’s only February 14th. The shooting today was the 47th mass shooting in America this year. (A “mass shooting” is a single event that kills or injures at least four people.) What an ugly number. There were 656 mass shootings in 2023.

14,000,000- -That’s the number of guns purchased by Americans in 2023. Doesn’t that number make you sick? If not, you have a problem that isn’t related to numbers.

14- -That’s the number of schools that were closed in Kansas City today. The kids were given the day off so they could attend the big parade.

1,000,000- -That’s the number of attendees who will never forget the shooting that occurred at the parade today. Many of the spectators were young children. They were there to joyously celebrate the great Super Bowl victory by the Kansas City Chiefs. The joy was stolen from them. They won’t remember the celebration. They’ll remember the shooting.

There was a big stage, in a large public area, at the end of the parade route. The shooting took place, very close to the stage, about an hour after the festivities had officially ended. Thousands of people were still in the area. Only an hour before the shooting, the Kansas City football stars were celebrating on the stage. The biggest stars were Patrick Mahomes (the star quarterback) and Travis Kelce (another offensive star and Taylor Swift’s boyfriend). The beloved coach, Andy Reid, was also on the stage.

The big three legends- -Mahomes, Kelce, and Reid- -are tough guys. They’re a big deal. They’re leaders. People look up to them. They are the embodiment of the concept that great things can happen if you work hard, stay focused on your goal, and overcome all obstacles.

Well, I have a challenge for the tough guys. Let’s see if they really have balls.

If they had balls, they would immediately call a press conference for tomorrow. Every media outlet would automatically attend. They should announce that they’re sickened by the gun violence in their own backyard. They should announce that they’re going to do something about it. They should announce that they’re not playing football again unless the Missouri legislature passes reasonable gun legislation that includes mandatory background checks, license requirements, wait periods, limits on high capacity ammunition magazines, and annual online gun safety training. They should explain that these are reasonable requests that are supported by most football fans. They should ask other championship teams, from all sports, to demand reasonable gun legislation in their states too. Then, they should walk off the stage and let the fans demand action from the Missouri legislature. That should make the legislature sweat! (For good measure, Taylor Swift should join the press conference by video to support the tough guys and to suggest that entertainment stars should also boycott states that refuse to address gun violence.)

I know that my readers include folks associated with the Kansas City Chiefs. Let’s see if the tough guys really have balls. Let’s see if they’re true leaders. If they’re tough enough to win the Super Bowl, they should be tough enough to tackle this issue. If they do nothing, which means that they refuse to protect their fans, they should be renamed the Kansas City Cowards. Nobody will go to a parade for the Kansas City Cowards.

There’s even more at stake on the ballot this Tuesday

It’s not just Congress, governorships, and state legislatures. There are over a hundred ballot measures up for a vote on Election Day, on topics ranging from abortion to voting rights. Check Ballotpedia.org for your state’s full list of ballot measures, but here are a few important ones to highlight:

Alabama:

Amendment 2 would allow the state to ban abortions in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Arizona:

Proposition 126 would ban any future taxes on any kind of service, forever, limiting the ability of the state to raise revenue to fund any future programs.

Proposition 127 would require 50% of energy to come from renewable sources by 2030.

Arkansas:

Issue 2 would require a photo ID when voting, a measure to address a problem that doesn't exist (voter fraud), and would disproportionately impact poor voters and voters of color.

Issue 5 would raise the minimum wage to $11 an hour by 2022.

Colorado:

Amendment A would ban involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.

Amendments Y and Z would establish independent redistricting commissions to prevent partisan gerrymandering and ensure fairer elections.

Florida:

Amendment 4 would restore the right to vote to people with felony convictions who have completed their sentences.

Amendment 5 would require a 2/3 supermajority for tax increases of any kind, limiting the ability of the state to fund any future programs.

Amendment 9 would ban offshore oil and gas drilling.

Idaho:

Proposition 2 would expand Medicaid to ensure more low-income people have healthcare.

Louisiana:

Amendment 2 would require a unanimous jury verdict for felony trials, the current lack of which is a holdover Jim Crow-era policy.

Maryland:

Question 2 would allow same-day voter registration.

Massachusetts:

Question 3 would uphold a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

Michigan:

Proposal 1 would legalize marijuana.

Proposal 2 would establish an independent redistricting commission to prevent partisan gerrymandering and ensure fairer elections.

Proposal 3 would expand voting rights, including automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, and no-excuse absentee voting.

Missouri:

Amendment 1 would establish an independent redistricting commission to prevent partisan gerrymandering and ensure fairer elections, as well as putting limits on campaign finance and lobbyists.

Amendments 2 and 3 and Proposition C would each legalize medical marijuana.

Proposition B would increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour.

Montana:

Initiative 185 would expand Medicaid and increase health funding.

Nebraska:

Initiative 427 would expand Medicaid to ensure more low-income people have healthcare.

Nevada:

Question 5 would enact automatic voter registration for anyone getting a driver’s license.

Question 6 would require 50 percent of energy to come from renewable sources by 2030.

North Carolina:

The Voter ID Amendment would require a photo ID to vote, a measure to address a problem that doesn't exist (voter fraud), and would disproportionately impact poor voters and voters of color.

The Legislative Appointments Amendment and Judicial Selection Amendment are blatant power grabs by the Republican-controlled legislature to take over the appointment of judges and election officials.

North Dakota:

Measure 3 would legalize marijuana and expunge marijuana-related convictions.

Oregon:

Measure 104 would require a 3/5 supermajority for tax increases of any kind, limiting the ability of the state to fund any future programs.

Measure 105 would allow state law enforcement to arrest non-criminal undocumented immigrants.

Measure 106 would ban public funds from being spent on abortions.

Utah:

Proposition 2 would legalize medical marijuana.

Proposition 3 would expand Medicaid to ensure more low-income people have healthcare.

Proposition 4 would create an independent redistricting commission to prevent partisan gerrymandering and ensure fairer elections.

Washington:

Initiative 940 would require police to receive de-escalation and mental health training and establish more stringent limits of the use of deadly force.

Initiative 1631 would establish a carbon tax, currently considered the number-one most effective way of immediately fighting climate change.

Initiative 1639 would implement certain gun control measures, including background checks.

West Virginia:

Amendment 1 would allow the state to ban abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Where every 2020 candidate stands on guns

Ten of the Democratic presidential candidates during the first 2020 debate. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The candidates agree on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. There’s less agreement on other proposals.

In response to recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and now Odessa and Midland, Texas, and Mobile, Alabama, supporters of stricter gun laws have voiced a simple mantra: “Do something!”

So, after little federal action on guns for more than two decades, what would the 2020 presidential candidates actually do?

President Donald Trump, for his part, doesn’t seem interested in much. He has supported a federal red flag law, which would allow police to take away someone’s guns if there’s some proof of a risk of violence (a “red flag”). But on other measures, from universal background checks to an assault weapons ban, Trump and Republican lawmakers have resisted, instead talking up questionable connections between violence, mental illness, and violent media.

Democratic candidates, however, have taken more comprehensive stances on guns. For the most part, they’re sticking to common Democratic themes like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban (which is typically paired with a ban on high-capacity magazines), and federally funded research into gun violence. But the campaigns’ plans do include some new ideas here and there — including red flag laws, which campaigns ranging from Cory Booker’s to John Delaney’s back, and requiring a license to buy and own a gun, which Booker in particular brought to the presidential stage but others, like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, also support.

As I’ve argued before, even the most ambitious of the candidates’ gun control proposals don’t go far enough to seriously dent gun violence. America leads the developed world in gun violence, with gun death rates nearly four times that of Switzerland, five times that of Canada, 35 times that of the United Kingdom, and 53 times that of Japan. The core problem is the US simply has way too many guns and too much access to firearms, letting just about anyone obtain a weapon to carry out a mass shooting or more typical types of gun violence, whether suicides or homicides.

But none of the Democratic proposals do anything to swiftly address that core problem and significantly reduce the number of guns in the US.

Still, the research suggests that stricter gun laws, particularly licensing, would reduce gun deaths. So the Democratic proposals would make some progress, even if they wouldn’t be enough to bring down America’s rate of gun deaths to that of its developed peers.

Some proposals show a little movement

Most of the Democratic candidates at least mention gun violence on their campaign websites and other networks (like Medium), though just a few — Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and Kamala Harris in particular stick out — go into a lot of detail.

The Democratic candidates are in general agreement on at least two proposals: universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. When it comes to other issues, there’s a bit less agreement, or at least less attention.

The big common proposal is universal background checks. Under federal law, licensed gun dealers have to run a background check, looking at factors like criminal record and mental health history, to sell someone a firearm. But unlicensed sellers — think a family member, or perhaps someone over the internet or at a gun show — don’t have to run a check. Universal background checks attempt to stamp out the unlicensed sellers by requiring a background check for all or nearly all gun transactions.

An assault weapons ban has also received more attention with the rise of extremely deadly mass shootings, as the shooters have used weapons like AR-15s and WASR-10s (a variant of an AK-47) to carry out the attacks. There are questions about how it would be implemented and enforced, but the idea is to ban military-style semiautomatic rifles. Some Democratic candidates frame this as bringing back a previous federal assault weapons ban, which was enacted in 1994 but expired in 2004, that kept existing weapons in circulation but tried to restrict future sales. Others want to go further, mandating that gun owners actually turn in the banned weapons.

Beyond those two proposals, candidates have also supported red flag laws, which could allow a family member, neighbor, close friend, teacher, or cop to report an “extreme risk” of violence to the courts. The court could then order the seizure of a person’s weapons.

The candidates also favor closing loopholes in existing gun laws. That includes the “boyfriend loophole,” which lets people get a gun even if they have a protective order against them due to a dating relationship, and the “Charleston loophole,” which allows a small number of people to obtain a gun without completing a background check if the check takes too long. (This is how the self-described white supremacist who killed nine people at a predominantly black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015 got his gun.)

There’s also a lot of support for federally funded research into gun violence, as well as the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies.

Some candidates have moved to the left by calling for gun licensing, which would require a license to purchase and own a firearm. Typically, obtaining a license would involve a background check, but also a more extensive vetting process that can require submitting fingerprints and a photo, interviews with law enforcement, and a gun safety training course. Some would pair this proposal — as is done in, for example, Massachusetts — with mandatory registration of firearms. (This, in theory, allows police to pull up a database of weapons to seize if someone loses a license.)

Several candidates, including Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, and Yang, support gun licensing. But others, including Joe Biden and Michael Bennet, have been critical of it.

Otherwise, there’s been little significant movement from the typical Democratic mantras of universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

Even the boldest proposals don’t go far enough

The Democratic proposals on guns show how stuck the debate over this issue has been for decades. In 1993 and 1994, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed federal background checks and a 10-year assault weapons ban. In the 25 years since, the debate has largely been relegated to … more background checks and an assault weapons ban. As the party has moved left on everything from single-payer health care to the Green New Deal to taxes on the wealthy, it hasn’t really moved on guns.

One reason is that Democrats’ philosophy on gun policy has remained largely the same: to prevent certain kinds of people from getting guns, and at most prohibit only a small fraction of firearms.

But America’s problem is much broader: It simply has too many guns, regardless of whether they’re in a “good” guy’s hands or a “bad” guy’s hands. The US has far more guns than any other country in the world — more guns than people, according to the Small Arms Survey. That makes it easy to get a firearm, legally or not, leading to more gun deaths.

Research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center backs this up: After controlling for variables such as socioeconomic factors and other crime, places with more guns have more gun deaths — not just homicides but also suicides, domestic violence, violence against police, and mass shootings.

Another way to look at this: Everywhere in the world, people get into arguments. Every country has residents who are dangerous to themselves or others because of mental illness. Every country has bigots and extremists. But in America, it’s uniquely easy for a person to obtain a gun, letting otherwise tense but nonlethal conflicts escalate into deadly violence.

Yes, stronger gun laws can help. A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

But the types of gun control laws matter. Some of the recent research on universal background checks has been mixed, and studies on the last assault weapons ban found it ineffective for reducing overall levels of gun violence, in part because the great majority of gun deaths involves handguns, not assault weapons. But studies on licensing have been very consistent in significantly reducing gun deaths — in urban counties, Connecticut, and Missouri, including for suicides.

One reason licensing might work is that it addresses America’s core gun problem. On its face, licensing might seem like an extension of the background check model, since the idea is still to filter between qualified and unqualified people.

But a licensing process can go way further: While a background check is more often than not quick and hassle-free, gun licensing in, for example, Massachusetts is a weeks- or months-long process that requires submitting a photograph and fingerprints, passing a training course, and going through one or more interviews, all involving law enforcement. That adds significant barriers for even a would-be gun owner who has no ill intent or bad history.

“The end impact is you decrease gun ownership overall,” Cassandra Crifasi, a researcher (and gun owner) at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, previously told me, discussing Massachusetts’s laws. “Lots of folks think, ‘Well, it’s probably not worth going through all these hoops to buy firearms, so I’m not going to buy one.’ And then you have fewer firearms around, and less exposure.”

This, however, could only be a start: the kind of thing that ensures fewer people get guns now and in the future. But in a country that already has so many firearms, something also needs to be done to take out a lot of guns more quickly.

That could require rethinking the Second Amendment, possibly by appointing judges who interpret it differently — an inversion of the NRA’s campaign to portray gun ownership as an individual right. It might even mean beginning an effort to repeal the amendment, a project that could admittedly take decades but has gotten less serious consideration and support than packing the Supreme Court or even abolishing the Senate.

Significant change could involve imposing bigger hurdles to owning a gun — requiring that people provide a stronger justification, besides self-defense or recreation, to obtain a license.

It could mean banning more types of guns — perhaps all semiautomatic weapons or all handguns — and coupling that with an Australian-style mandatory buyback program, which the research supports. If the key difference between America and other countries is how many more guns the US has, then something has to be done to quickly reduce the number of firearms here.

Democrats aren’t there yet. Until that changes, there will be little voice in the presidential stage to the kinds of policies that could get American gun violence down to the levels of the US’s developed peers.

Where the Democrats stand

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden does not yet have a dedicated gun policy platform on his website, though his campaign said one is coming soon. In other proposals, he’s stated his support for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. He has also indicated that he’d be for prohibiting firearms that aren’t “smart guns,” which try to ensure the person pulling the trigger is the firearm’s owner by, for example, verifying a fingerprint. But Biden has also spoken unfavorably about licensing plans, saying “gun licensing will not change whether or not people buy what weapons — what kinds of weapons they can buy, where they can use them, how they can store them.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Sanders’s campaign website includes a gun safety platform, and he released a separate plan to combat white supremacist extremism. He promises to make background checks universal, ban assault weapons, and crack down on “straw purchases” of firearms. On licensing, his campaign also told the Trace that he “supports the right of states, localities and tribal governments to implement licensing programs.” Sanders has historically taken more moderate stances on gun control, but he’s shifted to the left in recent years; for example, he originally voted for special legal protections for gun companies in 2003 and 2005, but has since come out against them.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Warren’s campaign website includes a plan to fight gun violence. The plan aims to reduce gun deaths by 80 percent. Warren calls for executive actions to expand background checks, close loopholes in existing laws, and target gun traffickers and licensed gun dealers who break the law. She also proposes sweeping legislation that includes universal background checks and an assault weapons ban but also gun licensing as well as support for urban gun violence intervention programs. And with federally funded gun violence research, she promises to return to the issue of firearms annually, “adding new ideas and tweaking existing ones based on new data — to continually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.”

Sen. Kamala Harris: Harris’s campaign website promises “action on gun violence.” As president, she plans to give Congress 100 days to pass stronger gun laws, including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies. But if Congress doesn’t act, she promises to sign executive orders to expand background checks, crack down on bad gun companies and dealers, make it more difficult for some people with criminal records (including domestic violence) to buy firearms, and ban the importation of some assault weapons into the US. She also said, on gun licensing, “I like the idea.”

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Buttigieg’s campaign website includes a section on gun laws, and he also released a separate plan to “combat the national threat posed by hate and the gun lobby.” In the plans, Buttigieg says he supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, closing the “Charleston loophole,” closing loopholes in gun laws related to domestic violence and hate crimes, red flag laws, federally funded research on gun violence, and investing money into urban gun violence intervention programs.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke: O’Rourke’s campaign website includes a section on gun safety. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, closing loopholes in gun laws like the “Charleston loophole” and those linked to domestic violence, and funding for trauma support and community programs related to firearm education and disrupting gun violence. He also told the Trace he supports gun licensing.

Sen. Cory Booker: Booker’s campaign website includes two proposals to combat gun violence and gun suicides. He emphasizes gun licensing and registration as his main proposal, but his plans also include the typical mainstays of Democratic gun policy: universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws and regulations, red flag laws, safe storage requirements, and more funding for gun violence research. He also vows to take executive action to tighten gun laws as much as possible if Congress doesn’t act.

Andrew Yang: Yang’s campaign website includes a gun safety plan. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, closing loopholes in existing laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, federally funded research on gun violence, and creating financial incentives for firearm owners to obtain smart guns.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Gabbard’s campaign website includes a section on gun safety legislation. She supports universal background checks, closing loopholes in laws regarding domestic violence and suspected terrorism, and an assault weapons ban.

Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro: Castro’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and red flag laws.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Klobuchar’s campaign released a plan on gun violence. She backs universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Tom Steyer: Steyer’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment.

Marianne Williamson: Williamson’s campaign website includes a section on gun policy. She supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, mandatory waiting periods, stricter laws regarding children’s use of guns, child safety locks for all guns, red flag laws, and federally funded research into gun violence.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock: Bullock’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and red flag laws.

Former Rep. John Delaney: Delaney’s campaign website includes a gun safety platform. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws, red flag laws, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Rep. Tim Ryan: Ryan’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio: De Blasio’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He’s voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and urban gun violence intervention programs (some of which he implemented as mayor of New York City).

Former Rep. Joe Sestak: Sestak’s website includes a section on violence prevention. He supports an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing background check laws, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Sen. Michael Bennet: Bennet’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He told the Trace he supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, and federally funded research on gun violence. But he opposes gun licensing.

Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam: Messam’s campaign website includes a section on gun reform. He backs expanded background checks.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Yu4xSA

The tragically incompetent mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union this weekend to deflect attention from the horror show unfolding in her city by blaming interlopers for its spiking murder rate: “We are being inundated with guns from states that have virtually no gun control, no background checks, no ban on assault weapons -- that is hurting cities like Chicago.”Although these accusations have leveled by Chicago politicians for decades now, they are a myth.For one thing, there is no state in the nation with “virtually no gun control” or “no background checks.” Every time anyone in the United States purchases a gun from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) -- a gun store, a gun show, it doesn’t matter -- the seller runs a background check on the buyer through the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. In some cases, the FFL checks to see if the buyer has passed a background check via a state-issued concealed-carry permit. In states that allow individual private sales, it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone who you believe is obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes.Those who cross state lines to buy guns undergo the same background check, and the sale is processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state. The exact same laws apply to all online sales.The vast majority of Americans obtain their guns in this manner, and they rarely commit crimes. Around 7 percent of criminals in prison bought weapons using their real names. Fewer than 1 percent obtained them at gun shows. As the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer points out, there have been around 18 million concealed-carry permit holders over the past 15 years, and they have committed 801 firearm-related homicides over that span, or somewhere around 0.7 percent of all firearm-related murders. Concealed-carry holders not only are more law-abiding than the general population as a group; they are more law-abiding than law enforcement.Studies of those imprisoned on firearms charges show that most often they obtain their weapons by stealing them or buying them in black markets. A smaller percentage get them from family members or friends.On top of all this, federal law requires every FFL license holder to report the purchase of two or more handguns by the same person with a week to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This is one of the reasons straw purchasers -- people with a clean record who buy for criminals -- spread their operations to other states. This is not unique to Illinois or Chicago. It has nothing to do with strict or lenient laws. It has mostly to do with cities and states failing to prosecute straw purchases.Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state. I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state. If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”? According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago. New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.Then, of course, the “assault-weapons bans” that Lightfoot brings up have absolutely no bearing on Chicago’s murder rate, even if such prohibitions actually worked. There were 864 murders in the state of Illinois in 2018 (the last year for which the FBI has full stats). Of homicides where the type of weapon is reported by law enforcement, 592 were perpetrated using handguns, 14 with rifles, and four with shotguns. Over 100 murders were committed using knives, other cutting instruments, hands, feet, and other types of weapons. And of the 14 “rifles” used, it’s almost surely the case that not all of them were “assault weapons.” Among the illegal guns recovered by Chicago law enforcement in 2018, 12,220 were handguns of some kind and 1,769 were rifles and shotguns.In the states in Illinois’s neighborhood with no bans on “assault weapons,” the number of murders committed with a “rifle” is correspondingly small — ten in Indiana, eight in Tennessee, six in Kentucky, four in Wisconsin, and three in Mississippi.It’s also worth pointing out that gun homicides dropped sharply in most cities after the national “assault weapons” expired in 2004, even though the AR-15 would correspondingly become one of the most popular weapons in the country. The AR-15 is an excellent home-defense weapon, but long guns aren’t conducive to criminality, despite what we see in movies. Tragically, AR-15s are often favored by psychotic mass shooters, but rarely by the murderers who plague Lightfoot’s city.It keeps getting worse. Nearly 400 people have already been murdered in Chicago this year, around 100 more than in the entire year of 2019. On the night of May 29, 25 people were murdered and another 85 wounded by gunfire, more than any day in 60 years. And yet the mayor is appearing on TV to blame Mississippi and Texas. It is far more likely that black-market guns find their way to Chicago because the place has been a poorly run criminal mecca for decades.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2EhSwGm

The tragically incompetent mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union this weekend to deflect attention from the horror show unfolding in her city by blaming interlopers for its spiking murder rate: “We are being inundated with guns from states that have virtually no gun control, no background checks, no ban on assault weapons -- that is hurting cities like Chicago.”Although these accusations have leveled by Chicago politicians for decades now, they are a myth.For one thing, there is no state in the nation with “virtually no gun control” or “no background checks.” Every time anyone in the United States purchases a gun from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) -- a gun store, a gun show, it doesn’t matter -- the seller runs a background check on the buyer through the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. In some cases, the FFL checks to see if the buyer has passed a background check via a state-issued concealed-carry permit. In states that allow individual private sales, it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone who you believe is obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes.Those who cross state lines to buy guns undergo the same background check, and the sale is processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state. The exact same laws apply to all online sales.The vast majority of Americans obtain their guns in this manner, and they rarely commit crimes. Around 7 percent of criminals in prison bought weapons using their real names. Fewer than 1 percent obtained them at gun shows. As the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer points out, there have been around 18 million concealed-carry permit holders over the past 15 years, and they have committed 801 firearm-related homicides over that span, or somewhere around 0.7 percent of all firearm-related murders. Concealed-carry holders not only are more law-abiding than the general population as a group; they are more law-abiding than law enforcement.Studies of those imprisoned on firearms charges show that most often they obtain their weapons by stealing them or buying them in black markets. A smaller percentage get them from family members or friends.On top of all this, federal law requires every FFL license holder to report the purchase of two or more handguns by the same person with a week to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This is one of the reasons straw purchasers -- people with a clean record who buy for criminals -- spread their operations to other states. This is not unique to Illinois or Chicago. It has nothing to do with strict or lenient laws. It has mostly to do with cities and states failing to prosecute straw purchases.Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state. I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state. If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”? According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago. New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.Then, of course, the “assault-weapons bans” that Lightfoot brings up have absolutely no bearing on Chicago’s murder rate, even if such prohibitions actually worked. There were 864 murders in the state of Illinois in 2018 (the last year for which the FBI has full stats). Of homicides where the type of weapon is reported by law enforcement, 592 were perpetrated using handguns, 14 with rifles, and four with shotguns. Over 100 murders were committed using knives, other cutting instruments, hands, feet, and other types of weapons. And of the 14 “rifles” used, it’s almost surely the case that not all of them were “assault weapons.” Among the illegal guns recovered by Chicago law enforcement in 2018, 12,220 were handguns of some kind and 1,769 were rifles and shotguns.In the states in Illinois’s neighborhood with no bans on “assault weapons,” the number of murders committed with a “rifle” is correspondingly small — ten in Indiana, eight in Tennessee, six in Kentucky, four in Wisconsin, and three in Mississippi.It’s also worth pointing out that gun homicides dropped sharply in most cities after the national “assault weapons” expired in 2004, even though the AR-15 would correspondingly become one of the most popular weapons in the country. The AR-15 is an excellent home-defense weapon, but long guns aren’t conducive to criminality, despite what we see in movies. Tragically, AR-15s are often favored by psychotic mass shooters, but rarely by the murderers who plague Lightfoot’s city.It keeps getting worse. Nearly 400 people have already been murdered in Chicago this year, around 100 more than in the entire year of 2019. On the night of May 29, 25 people were murdered and another 85 wounded by gunfire, more than any day in 60 years. And yet the mayor is appearing on TV to blame Mississippi and Texas. It is far more likely that black-market guns find their way to Chicago because the place has been a poorly run criminal mecca for decades.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

No sooner had I posted my last piece, but someone drew my attention to Celtic’s official statement on the fans who continue to use pyrotechnics in the stadium. And I realised that I’m not going to be able to dodge this issue, as much as I wanted to.

I am not afraid to have this debate.

My views on it are well known enough that I wouldn’t be avoiding it even if I kept my mouth shut. They are on the record; nobody should be bringing this stuff into grounds and the idea that it will ever be “normalised” – something both the Green Brigade and the Unions Bears have said in statements – is deranged.

That is never, ever, ever going to happen and it should not happen.

There is nothing “normal” about letting off a firework or a smoke bomb in a crowded area.

This is illegal, under the 1985 Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act.

Because these things are dangerous.

A recent incident at the Sevco-Livingston game should have offered the proof of this, but I guess if you’re not the one being hurt it’s easy to live in denial.

Why else do people think certain American police forces use pyrotechnics to quell disturbances? Both fireworks and smoke bombs were used in Ferguson, Missouri, in the riots following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. And not even the military grade ones.

The use of these items has also been banned at music festivals, since 2017, under The Policing And Crime Act 2017 (Possession Of Pyrotechnic Articles At Musical Events) Regulations. One of the MP’s who voted for this was the Tory Nigel Adams who had been trying to get that ban in place since the year before, via a Private Members Bill.

Believe me, as loathe as I am to quote a Tory, this guy knew what he was about.

In his statement to the House on he said this;

“Flares can burn at up to 1,600 °C; fireworks can be even hotter, at up to 2,000 °C. There is also the added danger of an unexpected projectile. Smoke bombs are also hot and pose particular risks at indoor venues and also for fellow audience members with asthma or other such breathing difficulties. The surprise throwing of pyrotechnics from within a crowd can also create dangerous and distressing crowd disturbance.”

And he’s right, of course, on all counts.

Celtic has asked fans not to bring pyrotechnics into the ground.

Today it has pleaded with them not to do it.

Those who think our statement today was weak – and a lot of folk certainly do, on both sides of the debate– have grossly misunderstood the mood.

Celtic’s address to the fans today was nothing less than a final appeal for sanity to prevail before a far more serious reaction comes into effect. It’s a movie moment where a guy who’s holding a gun pleads with the person in front of him not to “make (me) use it.”

Our club does not want a confrontation with its own supporters.

No club in its right mind would.

But that doesn’t mean that it will back down from one.

When all else fails, and the reputation and standing of Celtic is at risk, and when ground closures are on the table there is not going to be any option but to enter into that conflict as a last resort.

Anyone who doubts that is a mug.

Anyone who would seek to blame the club for it needs to go and lie down in a dark room until they’ve gotten a grip.

Celtic is not going to wait, either for the inevitable sanction that they can’t ignore, or for the Council’s licensing board to threaten the safety certificate or, God help us, a scenario where somebody does get seriously hurt by one of these things before stomping it out.

I am tired of the argument that the pyromaniacs bring something to the atmosphere in games.

When they bring about a ground closure that’ll be great atmosphere.

I am tired hearing about all the good causes they fight for, as if that gave them license to break the law and put our club in the dock.

The good does not undo the bad nor the bad the good.

Are we better off for fans like these?

The answer is yes.

But the answer is also no, because no club can afford to have an element in its support which constantly brings problems and is not willing to show restraint or listen to reason.

I know there are people in our fan-base who simply aren’t getting this, or just don’t want to hear it … but this can’t continue. This cannot go on. Sooner or later, if the club itself doesn’t get this matter under control then outside agencies are going to do it for us.

I know people don’t believe that, but they ought to take a look around them; our club isn’t exactly popular in its own country. There is more than enough anti-Celtic sentiment out there that they should be convinced some folk would just love the excuse.

When Police Scotland and the licensing board demands that fans turn up two hours before kick-off because everyone is to get searched on the way in, what then?

Yeah, fine, great, let’s add just another hour or two to the day? I think not.

When the alternative is that the standing section gets shut down entirely, what then?

And at that point, it won’t be even Celtic making the call although you better believe that negative elements will be doing their damndest to make sure the club is blamed for it. Even the announcement has a lot of people foaming and the mouth and trying to make it into an equivalence matter; “Oh the club is good at attacking its own fans but …”

Those fans are breaking the law.

Is the club supposed to ignore that?

Because here’s the news; even if the club wanted to, it wouldn’t be allowed to, and that’s the part that a lot of people are going to have to get into their heads here.

The club is asking the fans to stop, but the imperative isn’t coming from them in the first place, it’s coming from UEFA, it’s coming for the governments in Holyrood and Westminster, the local authorities and the police.

And when the club acts on this in a manner some regard as draconian it not be because the club wanted to but because the club has no choice to.

On the one hand are those organisations, who have the power to do whatever they like, and on the other a set of supporters who will, at that point, be putting their own status before the whole club.

Celtic will not put itself in that position; long before that becomes a serious prospect, Celtic will take on the people responsible for this and act accordingly. And that will cause division, at a time when we don’t need it. It may even cleave off a section of our fan-base which sees the Green Brigade as the only true expression of the “culture”, and that is every bit as fanatical as those on the other side of the city who think Sevco should be an expression of theirs.

The trouble is, of course, that their club is bricking it over the behaviour of that section, because it’s already bent its whole identity to suit them. Celtic will never bend its identity to suit one group of fans. Those fans are allowed their politics … they cannot force it on the rest of us.

Whatever the club chooses to do in response to this, they have my full support.

What other option is there?

To allow lawlessness in the stands?

To invite the kind of problems which can do us real harm?

This one is a no-brainer. This one shouldn’t even require cogent thought.

When the club is being harmed, and they ask fans to stop doing the harm why isn’t that automatic? Why did we ever get here in the first place?

But we are here, and the only question remaining is where we go next.

That’s what people are going to have to ask themselves, but as they do they should not be under any illusions that Celtic’s resort to pleading represents the ultimate weakness.

It’s the last time the club is going ask nicely, and as the statement says that Celtic will be taking “further measures” you might conclude that perhaps the talking’s already over.

The CelticBlog is your site, and it thrives with your support. Please share our articles on social media, and subscribe to receive updates whenever we post a new piece. Remember, we have a Facebook page for all the articles and a Facebook Group for discussions about the pieces and other issues, and you can follow us on Twitter and on Celtic News Now.

https://ift.tt/31WTEpU

Should-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

Completely satisfied Friday! We’ve got formally made it by means of the canine days of summer season. (Enjoyable reality: Apparently these are set dates and never simply … a imprecise idea of “someday in August when it’s sizzling.” I used to be today-years-old after I discovered that.) However that doesn’t imply we’ve had even near a dearth of well being care information. So buckle up, right here’s what you might have missed this week.

Deliberate Parenthood formally rejected Title X funding relatively than adjust to what it deemed a “gag rule” on its suppliers. The value tag on that call? About $60 million yearly. Clinics throughout the nation are bracing for the monetary hit, and the group is leaning closely on donors to attempt to stanch the wound.

The New York Occasions: Deliberate Parenthood Refuses Federal Funds Over Abortion Restrictions

The Related Press: Deliberate Parenthood Sees Swift Fallout From Quitting Program

In the meantime, it was a little bit of a roller-coaster week when it comes to whether or not President Donald Trump could be pushing for background checks in his proposal to stem gun violence. After the twin mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Trump appeared open to the technique, regardless of it being lower than widespread along with his get together. Then The Atlantic reported that following a telephone name with NRA chief Wayne LaPierre, Trump softened that stance. Then Trump claimed the media studies have been inaccurate and that some sorts of background checks have been nonetheless on the desk.

Just about nothing appears set in stone but (a minimum of publicly), and we should always all simply wait to see what comes within the official proposal more likely to coincide with Congress’ return in September.

The Atlantic: Trump’s Cellphone Calls With Wayne LaPierre Reveal NRA’s Affect

Politico: Trump to Launch Gun Management Proposals, Together with Background Verify Updates

We did discover out this week precisely what was within the Parkland college students’ plan, although. And let me let you know, they swung for the fences with it. Included within the roadmap: a nationwide licensing and gun registry; a compulsory gun buyback program for assault-style weapons; a restrict of 1 firearm buy a month per particular person; the institution of a nationwide director of gun violence prevention; and a brand new multistep gun licensing system that would come with in-person interviews and a 10-day ready interval earlier than gun purchases are accredited.

USA Right now: Parkland College students Announce Gun Management Plan, Purpose to Halve Gun Violence Price in 10 Years

The Trump administration (and the Obama administration, as effectively) has lengthy chafed on the restrictions that include the Flores Settlement Settlement, which gives safety to detained immigrant youngsters in U.S. custody. So, this week it launched a brand new algorithm that successfully change these rules. Amongst different issues, the brand new requirements enable the federal government to detain youngsters indefinitely as a substitute of for 20 days, as specified by the Flores settlement.

Reuters: Trump Imposes Rule Permitting U.S. to Detain Migrant Households Indefinitely

What’s positively price a learn: the historical past behind the settlement and the story of the attorneys who’ve been defending it for many years. (“If somebody had advised me in 1985 that our work to guard youngsters would proceed into 2019, there isn’t a method I might have believed it,” says Carlos Holguin, a type of authentic attorneys.)

The New York Occasions: The Flores Settlement Protected Migrant Kids for Many years. It’s Below Menace.

13 years in the past, then-U.S. Surgeon Normal Richard Carmona was warned about some “disturbing” information that high federal scientists had found. It turned out that opioids have been addictive and harmful. The scientists really helpful pressing motion be taken to deal with the startling statistics, which hinted at a brewing disaster. Carmona agreed.

But the general public was by no means advised, and the momentum to take action fizzled. So what occurred?

Politico: Federal Scientists Warned of Coming Opioid Disaster in 2006

Seemingly to additional emphasize that the opioid epidemic’s early days have been marked by (on reflection) devastating missed alternatives and deep remorse, one other story seems to be at a bit city in Appalachia within the late 1990s. There, a nun, a health care provider and a lawyer have been among the many nation’s first activists to sound the alarm. Their efforts have been in the end crushed by Purdue Pharma.

The New York Occasions: A Nun, a Physician and a Lawyer — and Deep Remorse Over the Nation’s Dealing with of Opioids

In the meantime, a research hyperlinks states’ enlargement of Medicaid and the uptick of opioid remedy prescription charges.

The New York Occasions: Opioid Therapy Is Used Vastly Extra in States That Expanded Medicaid

And HHS goes to chill out privateness rules round how sufferers’ historical past with habit is famous of their charts. The principles have been put in place in order that sufferers felt comfy looking for medical assist with out regulation enforcement being alerted, however HHS Secretary Alex Azar stated they’ve turn out to be a barrier to correct care.

The Related Press: Feds to Revamp Confidentiality Guidelines for Dependancy Therapy

The FDA is stepping in to affix the CDC’s investigation into circumstances of lung illness throughout the nation that appear linked to vaping.

The New York Occasions: Vaping Sicknesses Rising: 153 Instances Reported in 16 States

And don’t miss the story from KHN’s personal Victoria Knight a few West Virginia doctor who all the best way again in 2015 filed a paper on a affected person with a lung illness he suspected was tied to vaping.

Years In the past, This Physician Linked a Mysterious Lung Illness to Vaping

On this week’s miscellaneous file:

Emergency care in financially depressed areas has turn out to be a standoff between bancrupt rural hospitals and sufferers who don’t have the cash to pay their ER payments. That struggle is ending up in courtroom so usually that locals in a small Missouri city name it the “follow-up appointment.”

The Washington Submit: The ‘Comply with-Up Appointment’

One of many uncomfortable side effects of the rising recognition of at-home DNA assessments? An increasing number of, individuals who have been born utilizing synthetic insemination are discovering out that their fathers aren’t the sperm donors their moms selected however relatively the physician who carried out the process.

The New York Occasions: Their Moms Selected Donor Sperm. The Medical doctors Used Their Personal.

Additionally, you should definitely try the Dallas Morning Information’ authentic reporting from April on one of many girls featured within the story.

Dallas Morning Information: ABC’s ’20/20′ Options Dallas Girl Who Discovered Out Her Mom’s Fertility Physician Is Her Father

The affected person suffers from tremors, issue strolling and lack of stability. If the affected person is a person, his signs could be sufficient to have docs begin questioning if it’s Parkinson’s. But when it’s a lady, it’s chalked as much as the modern-day model of what Victorians known as feminine “hysteria.”

ProPublica: In Males, It’s Parkinson’s. In Girls, It’s Hysteria.

For years, residents of a Newark neighborhood have been saying their water tastes humorous due to the harmful ranges of lead. And but little has been executed to repair it.

The New York Occasions: ‘Tasting Humorous for Years’: Lead within the Water and a Metropolis in Disaster

That’s it for me, and have a fantastic weekend!

from insurancepolicypro http://insurancepolicypro.com/?p=239

(Bloomberg) -- The arrivals of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court stoked liberal fears that bedrock precedents on divisive issues including abortion and federal regulatory power were in danger.That may still be true. But the term that ended last week showed that the road to fulfilling long-held conservative goals will feature some speed bumps.In the first term since Kavanaugh succeeded swing vote Anthony Kennedy, conservatives won a major ruling that shielded partisan gerrymanders from constitutional challenges. They also triumphed on property rights and the death penalty.Those victories were offset by a decision that, for now, stopped the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. Another ruling preserved some of the power of federal agencies, and the court has refused so far to take up an abortion case.The court is undoubtedly more conservative with President Donald Trump’s two appointees on the bench. As the nation moves into a long and contentious election season, the court’s move to the right will give Trump fuel to fire up his base and Democrats fodder for making the court a major campaign issue of their own.Conservative WinsBut the just-finished term underscores the limits to that shift, or at least to its speed.“There were major leaps -- for example, blessing partisan gerrymandering in federal court,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who founded scotusblog.com, which tracks the court. “But in other cases, the conservatives were content to just advance the law methodically.”In a term in which 21 rulings were decided by a single vote -- representing almost a third of the docket -- the conservatives formed a 5-4 majority only seven times.Some of those rulings were big ones, though, particularly the decision last week that said the Constitution doesn’t let judges throw out voting maps for being too partisan. That ruling gave state lawmakers a new license to draw maps aimed at maximizing their own political advantage. It could bolster Republicans in the 2020 elections.Precedents OverturnedThe conservatives -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- also ruled that people could go directly to federal court to claim that a government regulation unconstitutionally took private property without compensation.That was one of two decisions that explicitly overturned a precedent. A 1985 ruling had required property owners to press their claims first in state court, a potentially less hospitable forum.Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling “smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” a contention Roberts disputed in his majority opinion.The five conservatives were also in the majority in a 5-4 ruling that let Missouri give a lethal injection to a convicted murderer who said his rare medical condition means he would probably choke on his own blood.Let’s Stick TogetherConservatives got a bigger majority, 7-2, for a ruling that let a 40-foot cross remain as a World War I memorial in a Maryland intersection. Alito’s opinion for the court was narrow, noting that the monument is almost a century old and leaving open the possibility that newer religious displays might be judged differently.Disagreements among the conservatives tempered their ability to shift the law. Each of the five joined the liberal wing -- Justices Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- at least once in a 5-4 or 5-3 ruling. The liberals won 10 cases in which they stuck together and were joined by a single conservative justice.Some of those rulings were narrow, better characterized as fending off conservative victories than pushing the law to the left. The liberals joined with Roberts to reaffirm a 1997 ruling that often requires judges to defer to an agency on the meaning of ambiguous regulations.That opinion limited the circumstances in which courts should yield to agencies -- so much so that Gorsuch said in dissent that the 1997 precedent had become a “paper tiger” and predicted it would eventually be overturned.Citizenship QuestionThe liberals also aligned with Roberts to put on hold the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the decennial census. Although Roberts agreed with the administration and his fellow conservatives on a number of points, he diverged enough to put in the plan in doubt.Roberts and the liberals said the administration’s explanation for the move was “contrived.” The Commerce Department now has a chance to provide better justification but will be racing the clock. The administration previously said the questionnaire needed to be finalized by June 30.“This term showed that it is not impossible to secure progressive victories in this court,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “But make no mistake, the Roberts court is deeply conservative and we saw several seeds planted” that she said “could bear fruit for an extreme conservative agenda in terms to come.”Libertarian GorsuchGorsuch joined the liberals four times, twice in criminal cases. He wrote the majority opinion striking down a provision that increased sentences for some people convicted of carrying a firearm during a violent crime, saying it was unconstitutionally vague.The ruling drew a sharp dissent from Kavanaugh, who called it a “serious mistake.” He said it “will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future.”Gorsuch has inherited the role of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he succeeded, as the court’s civil libertarian in criminal cases, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.“Like Scalia, Gorsuch’s opinions are not driven by empathy for those who break the law,” Blackman said. “Rather, he is generally skeptical of the federal government’s powers to deprive people of life, liberty and property.”Antitrust CaseThe firearms case wasn’t the only one that divided the two Trump appointees. Kavanaugh joined the liberals in an antitrust decision forcing Apple Inc. to defend against claims that it artificially inflated prices at its App Store. Gorsuch dissented with his fellow conservatives.The two Trump appointees agreed 70% of the time, identical to Kavanaugh’s agreement level with Breyer and Kagan, according to statistics compiled by scotusblog.com.But both “flexed their conservative bona fides” this term, said Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan.. They “willingly agreed to overturn several longstanding precedents in areas ranging from constitutional rights to administrative law.”That left Roberts controlling the court on its most important decisions.“This is now, truly, the Roberts court,” said Kannon Shanmugam, an appellate lawyer at Paul Weiss in Washington. “While the court’s general direction was not consistent, the chief justice played a pivotal role in the most important decisions.”To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at [email protected], Laurie Asséo, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2J2t8nS

(Bloomberg) -- The arrivals of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court stoked liberal fears that bedrock precedents on divisive issues including abortion and federal regulatory power were in danger.That may still be true. But the term that ended last week showed that the road to fulfilling long-held conservative goals will feature some speed bumps.In the first term since Kavanaugh succeeded swing vote Anthony Kennedy, conservatives won a major ruling that shielded partisan gerrymanders from constitutional challenges. They also triumphed on property rights and the death penalty.Those victories were offset by a decision that, for now, stopped the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. Another ruling preserved some of the power of federal agencies, and the court has refused so far to take up an abortion case.The court is undoubtedly more conservative with President Donald Trump’s two appointees on the bench. As the nation moves into a long and contentious election season, the court’s move to the right will give Trump fuel to fire up his base and Democrats fodder for making the court a major campaign issue of their own.Conservative WinsBut the just-finished term underscores the limits to that shift, or at least to its speed.“There were major leaps -- for example, blessing partisan gerrymandering in federal court,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who founded scotusblog.com, which tracks the court. “But in other cases, the conservatives were content to just advance the law methodically.”In a term in which 21 rulings were decided by a single vote -- representing almost a third of the docket -- the conservatives formed a 5-4 majority only seven times.Some of those rulings were big ones, though, particularly the decision last week that said the Constitution doesn’t let judges throw out voting maps for being too partisan. That ruling gave state lawmakers a new license to draw maps aimed at maximizing their own political advantage. It could bolster Republicans in the 2020 elections.Precedents OverturnedThe conservatives -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- also ruled that people could go directly to federal court to claim that a government regulation unconstitutionally took private property without compensation.That was one of two decisions that explicitly overturned a precedent. A 1985 ruling had required property owners to press their claims first in state court, a potentially less hospitable forum.Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling “smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” a contention Roberts disputed in his majority opinion.The five conservatives were also in the majority in a 5-4 ruling that let Missouri give a lethal injection to a convicted murderer who said his rare medical condition means he would probably choke on his own blood.Let’s Stick TogetherConservatives got a bigger majority, 7-2, for a ruling that let a 40-foot cross remain as a World War I memorial in a Maryland intersection. Alito’s opinion for the court was narrow, noting that the monument is almost a century old and leaving open the possibility that newer religious displays might be judged differently.Disagreements among the conservatives tempered their ability to shift the law. Each of the five joined the liberal wing -- Justices Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- at least once in a 5-4 or 5-3 ruling. The liberals won 10 cases in which they stuck together and were joined by a single conservative justice.Some of those rulings were narrow, better characterized as fending off conservative victories than pushing the law to the left. The liberals joined with Roberts to reaffirm a 1997 ruling that often requires judges to defer to an agency on the meaning of ambiguous regulations.That opinion limited the circumstances in which courts should yield to agencies -- so much so that Gorsuch said in dissent that the 1997 precedent had become a “paper tiger” and predicted it would eventually be overturned.Citizenship QuestionThe liberals also aligned with Roberts to put on hold the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the decennial census. Although Roberts agreed with the administration and his fellow conservatives on a number of points, he diverged enough to put in the plan in doubt.Roberts and the liberals said the administration’s explanation for the move was “contrived.” The Commerce Department now has a chance to provide better justification but will be racing the clock. The administration previously said the questionnaire needed to be finalized by June 30.“This term showed that it is not impossible to secure progressive victories in this court,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “But make no mistake, the Roberts court is deeply conservative and we saw several seeds planted” that she said “could bear fruit for an extreme conservative agenda in terms to come.”Libertarian GorsuchGorsuch joined the liberals four times, twice in criminal cases. He wrote the majority opinion striking down a provision that increased sentences for some people convicted of carrying a firearm during a violent crime, saying it was unconstitutionally vague.The ruling drew a sharp dissent from Kavanaugh, who called it a “serious mistake.” He said it “will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future.”Gorsuch has inherited the role of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he succeeded, as the court’s civil libertarian in criminal cases, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.“Like Scalia, Gorsuch’s opinions are not driven by empathy for those who break the law,” Blackman said. “Rather, he is generally skeptical of the federal government’s powers to deprive people of life, liberty and property.”Antitrust CaseThe firearms case wasn’t the only one that divided the two Trump appointees. Kavanaugh joined the liberals in an antitrust decision forcing Apple Inc. to defend against claims that it artificially inflated prices at its App Store. Gorsuch dissented with his fellow conservatives.The two Trump appointees agreed 70% of the time, identical to Kavanaugh’s agreement level with Breyer and Kagan, according to statistics compiled by scotusblog.com.But both “flexed their conservative bona fides” this term, said Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan.. They “willingly agreed to overturn several longstanding precedents in areas ranging from constitutional rights to administrative law.”That left Roberts controlling the court on its most important decisions.“This is now, truly, the Roberts court,” said Kannon Shanmugam, an appellate lawyer at Paul Weiss in Washington. “While the court’s general direction was not consistent, the chief justice played a pivotal role in the most important decisions.”To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at [email protected], Laurie Asséo, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2J2t8nS

(Bloomberg) -- The arrivals of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court stoked liberal fears that bedrock precedents on divisive issues including abortion and federal regulatory power were in danger.That may still be true. But the term that ended last week showed that the road to fulfilling long-held conservative goals will feature some speed bumps.In the first term since Kavanaugh succeeded swing vote Anthony Kennedy, conservatives won a major ruling that shielded partisan gerrymanders from constitutional challenges. They also triumphed on property rights and the death penalty.Those victories were offset by a decision that, for now, stopped the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. Another ruling preserved some of the power of federal agencies, and the court has refused so far to take up an abortion case.The court is undoubtedly more conservative with President Donald Trump’s two appointees on the bench. As the nation moves into a long and contentious election season, the court’s move to the right will give Trump fuel to fire up his base and Democrats fodder for making the court a major campaign issue of their own.Conservative WinsBut the just-finished term underscores the limits to that shift, or at least to its speed.“There were major leaps -- for example, blessing partisan gerrymandering in federal court,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who founded scotusblog.com, which tracks the court. “But in other cases, the conservatives were content to just advance the law methodically.”In a term in which 21 rulings were decided by a single vote -- representing almost a third of the docket -- the conservatives formed a 5-4 majority only seven times.Some of those rulings were big ones, though, particularly the decision last week that said the Constitution doesn’t let judges throw out voting maps for being too partisan. That ruling gave state lawmakers a new license to draw maps aimed at maximizing their own political advantage. It could bolster Republicans in the 2020 elections.Precedents OverturnedThe conservatives -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- also ruled that people could go directly to federal court to claim that a government regulation unconstitutionally took private property without compensation.That was one of two decisions that explicitly overturned a precedent. A 1985 ruling had required property owners to press their claims first in state court, a potentially less hospitable forum.Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling “smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” a contention Roberts disputed in his majority opinion.The five conservatives were also in the majority in a 5-4 ruling that let Missouri give a lethal injection to a convicted murderer who said his rare medical condition means he would probably choke on his own blood.Let’s Stick TogetherConservatives got a bigger majority, 7-2, for a ruling that let a 40-foot cross remain as a World War I memorial in a Maryland intersection. Alito’s opinion for the court was narrow, noting that the monument is almost a century old and leaving open the possibility that newer religious displays might be judged differently.Disagreements among the conservatives tempered their ability to shift the law. Each of the five joined the liberal wing -- Justices Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- at least once in a 5-4 or 5-3 ruling. The liberals won 10 cases in which they stuck together and were joined by a single conservative justice.Some of those rulings were narrow, better characterized as fending off conservative victories than pushing the law to the left. The liberals joined with Roberts to reaffirm a 1997 ruling that often requires judges to defer to an agency on the meaning of ambiguous regulations.That opinion limited the circumstances in which courts should yield to agencies -- so much so that Gorsuch said in dissent that the 1997 precedent had become a “paper tiger” and predicted it would eventually be overturned.Citizenship QuestionThe liberals also aligned with Roberts to put on hold the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the decennial census. Although Roberts agreed with the administration and his fellow conservatives on a number of points, he diverged enough to put in the plan in doubt.Roberts and the liberals said the administration’s explanation for the move was “contrived.” The Commerce Department now has a chance to provide better justification but will be racing the clock. The administration previously said the questionnaire needed to be finalized by June 30.“This term showed that it is not impossible to secure progressive victories in this court,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “But make no mistake, the Roberts court is deeply conservative and we saw several seeds planted” that she said “could bear fruit for an extreme conservative agenda in terms to come.”Libertarian GorsuchGorsuch joined the liberals four times, twice in criminal cases. He wrote the majority opinion striking down a provision that increased sentences for some people convicted of carrying a firearm during a violent crime, saying it was unconstitutionally vague.The ruling drew a sharp dissent from Kavanaugh, who called it a “serious mistake.” He said it “will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future.”Gorsuch has inherited the role of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he succeeded, as the court’s civil libertarian in criminal cases, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.“Like Scalia, Gorsuch’s opinions are not driven by empathy for those who break the law,” Blackman said. “Rather, he is generally skeptical of the federal government’s powers to deprive people of life, liberty and property.”Antitrust CaseThe firearms case wasn’t the only one that divided the two Trump appointees. Kavanaugh joined the liberals in an antitrust decision forcing Apple Inc. to defend against claims that it artificially inflated prices at its App Store. Gorsuch dissented with his fellow conservatives.The two Trump appointees agreed 70% of the time, identical to Kavanaugh’s agreement level with Breyer and Kagan, according to statistics compiled by scotusblog.com.But both “flexed their conservative bona fides” this term, said Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan.. They “willingly agreed to overturn several longstanding precedents in areas ranging from constitutional rights to administrative law.”That left Roberts controlling the court on its most important decisions.“This is now, truly, the Roberts court,” said Kannon Shanmugam, an appellate lawyer at Paul Weiss in Washington. “While the court’s general direction was not consistent, the chief justice played a pivotal role in the most important decisions.”To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at [email protected], Laurie Asséo, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2J2t8nS

(Bloomberg) -- The arrivals of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court stoked liberal fears that bedrock precedents on divisive issues including abortion and federal regulatory power were in danger.That may still be true. But the term that ended last week showed that the road to fulfilling long-held conservative goals will feature some speed bumps.In the first term since Kavanaugh succeeded swing vote Anthony Kennedy, conservatives won a major ruling that shielded partisan gerrymanders from constitutional challenges. They also triumphed on property rights and the death penalty.Those victories were offset by a decision that, for now, stopped the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. Another ruling preserved some of the power of federal agencies, and the court has refused so far to take up an abortion case.The court is undoubtedly more conservative with President Donald Trump’s two appointees on the bench. As the nation moves into a long and contentious election season, the court’s move to the right will give Trump fuel to fire up his base and Democrats fodder for making the court a major campaign issue of their own.Conservative WinsBut the just-finished term underscores the limits to that shift, or at least to its speed.“There were major leaps -- for example, blessing partisan gerrymandering in federal court,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who founded scotusblog.com, which tracks the court. “But in other cases, the conservatives were content to just advance the law methodically.”In a term in which 21 rulings were decided by a single vote -- representing almost a third of the docket -- the conservatives formed a 5-4 majority only seven times.Some of those rulings were big ones, though, particularly the decision last week that said the Constitution doesn’t let judges throw out voting maps for being too partisan. That ruling gave state lawmakers a new license to draw maps aimed at maximizing their own political advantage. It could bolster Republicans in the 2020 elections.Precedents OverturnedThe conservatives -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- also ruled that people could go directly to federal court to claim that a government regulation unconstitutionally took private property without compensation.That was one of two decisions that explicitly overturned a precedent. A 1985 ruling had required property owners to press their claims first in state court, a potentially less hospitable forum.Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling “smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” a contention Roberts disputed in his majority opinion.The five conservatives were also in the majority in a 5-4 ruling that let Missouri give a lethal injection to a convicted murderer who said his rare medical condition means he would probably choke on his own blood.Let’s Stick TogetherConservatives got a bigger majority, 7-2, for a ruling that let a 40-foot cross remain as a World War I memorial in a Maryland intersection. Alito’s opinion for the court was narrow, noting that the monument is almost a century old and leaving open the possibility that newer religious displays might be judged differently.Disagreements among the conservatives tempered their ability to shift the law. Each of the five joined the liberal wing -- Justices Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- at least once in a 5-4 or 5-3 ruling. The liberals won 10 cases in which they stuck together and were joined by a single conservative justice.Some of those rulings were narrow, better characterized as fending off conservative victories than pushing the law to the left. The liberals joined with Roberts to reaffirm a 1997 ruling that often requires judges to defer to an agency on the meaning of ambiguous regulations.That opinion limited the circumstances in which courts should yield to agencies -- so much so that Gorsuch said in dissent that the 1997 precedent had become a “paper tiger” and predicted it would eventually be overturned.Citizenship QuestionThe liberals also aligned with Roberts to put on hold the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the decennial census. Although Roberts agreed with the administration and his fellow conservatives on a number of points, he diverged enough to put in the plan in doubt.Roberts and the liberals said the administration’s explanation for the move was “contrived.” The Commerce Department now has a chance to provide better justification but will be racing the clock. The administration previously said the questionnaire needed to be finalized by June 30.“This term showed that it is not impossible to secure progressive victories in this court,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “But make no mistake, the Roberts court is deeply conservative and we saw several seeds planted” that she said “could bear fruit for an extreme conservative agenda in terms to come.”Libertarian GorsuchGorsuch joined the liberals four times, twice in criminal cases. He wrote the majority opinion striking down a provision that increased sentences for some people convicted of carrying a firearm during a violent crime, saying it was unconstitutionally vague.The ruling drew a sharp dissent from Kavanaugh, who called it a “serious mistake.” He said it “will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future.”Gorsuch has inherited the role of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he succeeded, as the court’s civil libertarian in criminal cases, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.“Like Scalia, Gorsuch’s opinions are not driven by empathy for those who break the law,” Blackman said. “Rather, he is generally skeptical of the federal government’s powers to deprive people of life, liberty and property.”Antitrust CaseThe firearms case wasn’t the only one that divided the two Trump appointees. Kavanaugh joined the liberals in an antitrust decision forcing Apple Inc. to defend against claims that it artificially inflated prices at its App Store. Gorsuch dissented with his fellow conservatives.The two Trump appointees agreed 70% of the time, identical to Kavanaugh’s agreement level with Breyer and Kagan, according to statistics compiled by scotusblog.com.But both “flexed their conservative bona fides” this term, said Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan.. They “willingly agreed to overturn several longstanding precedents in areas ranging from constitutional rights to administrative law.”That left Roberts controlling the court on its most important decisions.“This is now, truly, the Roberts court,” said Kannon Shanmugam, an appellate lawyer at Paul Weiss in Washington. “While the court’s general direction was not consistent, the chief justice played a pivotal role in the most important decisions.”To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at [email protected], Laurie Asséo, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2J2t8nS

Where every 2020 candidate stands on guns

Where every 2020 candidate stands on guns Ten of the Democratic presidential candidates during the first 2020 debate. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The candidates agree on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. There’s less agreement on other proposals.

In response to recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and now Odessa and Midland, Texas, and Mobile, Alabama, supporters of stricter gun laws have voiced a simple mantra: “Do something!”

So, after little federal action on guns for more than two decades, what would the 2020 presidential candidates actually do?

President Donald Trump, for his part, doesn’t seem interested in much. He has supported a federal red flag law, which would allow police to take away someone’s guns if there’s some proof of a risk of violence (a “red flag”). But on other measures, from universal background checks to an assault weapons ban, Trump and Republican lawmakers have resisted, instead talking up questionable connections between violence, mental illness, and violent media.

Democratic candidates, however, have taken more comprehensive stances on guns. For the most part, they’re sticking to common Democratic themes like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban (which is typically paired with a ban on high-capacity magazines), and federally funded research into gun violence. But the campaigns’ plans do include some new ideas here and there — including red flag laws, which campaigns ranging from Cory Booker’s to John Delaney’s back, and requiring a license to buy and own a gun, which Booker in particular brought to the presidential stage but others, like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, also support.

As I’ve argued before, even the most ambitious of the candidates’ gun control proposals don’t go far enough to seriously dent gun violence. America leads the developed world in gun violence, with gun death rates nearly four times that of Switzerland, five times that of Canada, 35 times that of the United Kingdom, and 53 times that of Japan. The core problem is the US simply has way too many guns and too much access to firearms, letting just about anyone obtain a weapon to carry out a mass shooting or more typical types of gun violence, whether suicides or homicides.

But none of the Democratic proposals do anything to swiftly address that core problem and significantly reduce the number of guns in the US.

Still, the research suggests that stricter gun laws, particularly licensing, would reduce gun deaths. So the Democratic proposals would make some progress, even if they wouldn’t be enough to bring down America’s rate of gun deaths to that of its developed peers.

Some proposals show a little movement

Most of the Democratic candidates at least mention gun violence on their campaign websites and other networks (like Medium), though just a few — Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and Kamala Harris in particular stick out — go into a lot of detail.

The Democratic candidates are in general agreement on at least two proposals: universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. When it comes to other issues, there’s a bit less agreement, or at least less attention.

The big common proposal is universal background checks. Under federal law, licensed gun dealers have to run a background check, looking at factors like criminal record and mental health history, to sell someone a firearm. But unlicensed sellers — think a family member, or perhaps someone over the internet or at a gun show — don’t have to run a check. Universal background checks attempt to stamp out the unlicensed sellers by requiring a background check for all or nearly all gun transactions.

An assault weapons ban has also received more attention with the rise of extremely deadly mass shootings, as the shooters have used weapons like AR-15s and WASR-10s (a variant of an AK-47) to carry out the attacks. There are questions about how it would be implemented and enforced, but the idea is to ban military-style semiautomatic rifles. Some Democratic candidates frame this as bringing back a previous federal assault weapons ban, which was enacted in 1994 but expired in 2004, that kept existing weapons in circulation but tried to restrict future sales. Others want to go further, mandating that gun owners actually turn in the banned weapons.

Beyond those two proposals, candidates have also supported red flag laws, which could allow a family member, neighbor, close friend, teacher, or cop to report an “extreme risk” of violence to the courts. The court could then order the seizure of a person’s weapons.

The candidates also favor closing loopholes in existing gun laws. That includes the “boyfriend loophole,” which lets people get a gun even if they have a protective order against them due to a dating relationship, and the “Charleston loophole,” which allows a small number of people to obtain a gun without completing a background check if the check takes too long. (This is how the self-described white supremacist who killed nine people at a predominantly black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015 got his gun.)

There’s also a lot of support for federally funded research into gun violence, as well as the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies.

Some candidates have moved to the left by calling for gun licensing, which would require a license to purchase and own a firearm. Typically, obtaining a license would involve a background check, but also a more extensive vetting process that can require submitting fingerprints and a photo, interviews with law enforcement, and a gun safety training course. Some would pair this proposal — as is done in, for example, Massachusetts — with mandatory registration of firearms. (This, in theory, allows police to pull up a database of weapons to seize if someone loses a license.)

Several candidates, including Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, and Yang, support gun licensing. But others, including Joe Biden and Michael Bennet, have been critical of it.

Otherwise, there’s been little significant movement from the typical Democratic mantras of universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

Even the boldest proposals don’t go far enough

The Democratic proposals on guns show how stuck the debate over this issue has been for decades. In 1993 and 1994, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed federal background checks and a 10-year assault weapons ban. In the 25 years since, the debate has largely been relegated to … more background checks and an assault weapons ban. As the party has moved left on everything from single-payer health care to the Green New Deal to taxes on the wealthy, it hasn’t really moved on guns.

One reason is that Democrats’ philosophy on gun policy has remained largely the same: to prevent certain kinds of people from getting guns, and at most prohibit only a small fraction of firearms.

But America’s problem is much broader: It simply has too many guns, regardless of whether they’re in a “good” guy’s hands or a “bad” guy’s hands. The US has far more guns than any other country in the world — more guns than people, according to the Small Arms Survey. That makes it easy to get a firearm, legally or not, leading to more gun deaths.

Research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center backs this up: After controlling for variables such as socioeconomic factors and other crime, places with more guns have more gun deaths — not just homicides but also suicides, domestic violence, violence against police, and mass shootings.

Another way to look at this: Everywhere in the world, people get into arguments. Every country has residents who are dangerous to themselves or others because of mental illness. Every country has bigots and extremists. But in America, it’s uniquely easy for a person to obtain a gun, letting otherwise tense but nonlethal conflicts escalate into deadly violence.

Yes, stronger gun laws can help. A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

But the types of gun control laws matter. Some of the recent research on universal background checks has been mixed, and studies on the last assault weapons ban found it ineffective for reducing overall levels of gun violence, in part because the great majority of gun deaths involves handguns, not assault weapons. But studies on licensing have been very consistent in significantly reducing gun deaths — in urban counties, Connecticut, and Missouri, including for suicides.

One reason licensing might work is that it addresses America’s core gun problem. On its face, licensing might seem like an extension of the background check model, since the idea is still to filter between qualified and unqualified people.

But a licensing process can go way further: While a background check is more often than not quick and hassle-free, gun licensing in, for example, Massachusetts is a weeks- or months-long process that requires submitting a photograph and fingerprints, passing a training course, and going through one or more interviews, all involving law enforcement. That adds significant barriers for even a would-be gun owner who has no ill intent or bad history.

“The end impact is you decrease gun ownership overall,” Cassandra Crifasi, a researcher (and gun owner) at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, previously told me, discussing Massachusetts’s laws. “Lots of folks think, ‘Well, it’s probably not worth going through all these hoops to buy firearms, so I’m not going to buy one.’ And then you have fewer firearms around, and less exposure.”

This, however, could only be a start: the kind of thing that ensures fewer people get guns now and in the future. But in a country that already has so many firearms, something also needs to be done to take out a lot of guns more quickly.

That could require rethinking the Second Amendment, possibly by appointing judges who interpret it differently — an inversion of the NRA’s campaign to portray gun ownership as an individual right. It might even mean beginning an effort to repeal the amendment, a project that could admittedly take decades but has gotten less serious consideration and support than packing the Supreme Court or even abolishing the Senate.

Significant change could involve imposing bigger hurdles to owning a gun — requiring that people provide a stronger justification, besides self-defense or recreation, to obtain a license.

It could mean banning more types of guns — perhaps all semiautomatic weapons or all handguns — and coupling that with an Australian-style mandatory buyback program, which the research supports. If the key difference between America and other countries is how many more guns the US has, then something has to be done to quickly reduce the number of firearms here.

Democrats aren’t there yet. Until that changes, there will be little voice in the presidential stage to the kinds of policies that could get American gun violence down to the levels of the US’s developed peers.

Where the Democrats stand

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden does not yet have a dedicated gun policy platform on his website, though his campaign said one is coming soon. In other proposals, he’s stated his support for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. He has also indicated that he’d be for prohibiting firearms that aren’t “smart guns,” which try to ensure the person pulling the trigger is the firearm’s owner by, for example, verifying a fingerprint. But Biden has also spoken unfavorably about licensing plans, saying “gun licensing will not change whether or not people buy what weapons — what kinds of weapons they can buy, where they can use them, how they can store them.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Sanders’s campaign website includes a gun safety platform, and he released a separate plan to combat white supremacist extremism. He promises to make background checks universal, ban assault weapons, and crack down on “straw purchases” of firearms. On licensing, his campaign also told the Trace that he “supports the right of states, localities and tribal governments to implement licensing programs.” Sanders has historically taken more moderate stances on gun control, but he’s shifted to the left in recent years; for example, he originally voted for special legal protections for gun companies in 2003 and 2005, but has since come out against them.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Warren’s campaign website includes a plan to fight gun violence. The plan aims to reduce gun deaths by 80 percent. Warren calls for executive actions to expand background checks, close loopholes in existing laws, and target gun traffickers and licensed gun dealers who break the law. She also proposes sweeping legislation that includes universal background checks and an assault weapons ban but also gun licensing as well as support for urban gun violence intervention programs. And with federally funded gun violence research, she promises to return to the issue of firearms annually, “adding new ideas and tweaking existing ones based on new data — to continually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.”

Sen. Kamala Harris: Harris’s campaign website promises “action on gun violence.” As president, she plans to give Congress 100 days to pass stronger gun laws, including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies. But if Congress doesn’t act, she promises to sign executive orders to expand background checks, crack down on bad gun companies and dealers, make it more difficult for some people with criminal records (including domestic violence) to buy firearms, and ban the importation of some assault weapons into the US. She also said, on gun licensing, “I like the idea.”

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Buttigieg’s campaign website includes a section on gun laws, and he also released a separate plan to “combat the national threat posed by hate and the gun lobby.” In the plans, Buttigieg says he supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, closing the “Charleston loophole,” closing loopholes in gun laws related to domestic violence and hate crimes, red flag laws, federally funded research on gun violence, and investing money into urban gun violence intervention programs.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke: O’Rourke’s campaign website includes a section on gun safety. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, closing loopholes in gun laws like the “Charleston loophole” and those linked to domestic violence, and funding for trauma support and community programs related to firearm education and disrupting gun violence. He also told the Trace he supports gun licensing.

Sen. Cory Booker: Booker’s campaign website includes two proposals to combat gun violence and gun suicides. He emphasizes gun licensing and registration as his main proposal, but his plans also include the typical mainstays of Democratic gun policy: universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws and regulations, red flag laws, safe storage requirements, and more funding for gun violence research. He also vows to take executive action to tighten gun laws as much as possible if Congress doesn’t act.

Andrew Yang: Yang’s campaign website includes a gun safety plan. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, closing loopholes in existing laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, federally funded research on gun violence, and creating financial incentives for firearm owners to obtain smart guns.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Gabbard’s campaign website includes a section on gun safety legislation. She supports universal background checks, closing loopholes in laws regarding domestic violence and suspected terrorism, and an assault weapons ban.

Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro: Castro’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and red flag laws.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Klobuchar’s campaign released a plan on gun violence. She backs universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Tom Steyer: Steyer’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment.

Marianne Williamson: Williamson’s campaign website includes a section on gun policy. She supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, mandatory waiting periods, stricter laws regarding children’s use of guns, child safety locks for all guns, red flag laws, and federally funded research into gun violence.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock: Bullock’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and red flag laws.

Former Rep. John Delaney: Delaney’s campaign website includes a gun safety platform. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws, red flag laws, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Rep. Tim Ryan: Ryan’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio: De Blasio’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He’s voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and urban gun violence intervention programs (some of which he implemented as mayor of New York City).

Former Rep. Joe Sestak: Sestak’s website includes a section on violence prevention. He supports an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing background check laws, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Sen. Michael Bennet: Bennet’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He told the Trace he supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, and federally funded research on gun violence. But he opposes gun licensing.

Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam: Messam’s campaign website includes a section on gun reform. He backs expanded background checks.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Yu4xSA from Blogger https://ift.tt/2Llhogs via IFTTT

With Kavanaugh in Place, Supreme Court Takes Bumpy Right Turn

(Bloomberg) -- The arrivals of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court stoked liberal fears that bedrock precedents on divisive issues including abortion and federal regulatory power were in danger.That may still be true. But the term that ended last week showed that the road to fulfilling long-held conservative goals will feature some speed bumps.In the first term since Kavanaugh succeeded swing vote Anthony Kennedy, conservatives won a major ruling that shielded partisan gerrymanders from constitutional challenges. They also triumphed on property rights and the death penalty.Those victories were offset by a decision that, for now, stopped the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. Another ruling preserved some of the power of federal agencies, and the court has refused so far to take up an abortion case.The court is undoubtedly more conservative with President Donald Trump’s two appointees on the bench. As the nation moves into a long and contentious election season, the court’s move to the right will give Trump fuel to fire up his base and Democrats fodder for making the court a major campaign issue of their own.Conservative WinsBut the just-finished term underscores the limits to that shift, or at least to its speed.“There were major leaps -- for example, blessing partisan gerrymandering in federal court,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who founded scotusblog.com, which tracks the court. “But in other cases, the conservatives were content to just advance the law methodically.”In a term in which 21 rulings were decided by a single vote -- representing almost a third of the docket -- the conservatives formed a 5-4 majority only seven times.Some of those rulings were big ones, though, particularly the decision last week that said the Constitution doesn’t let judges throw out voting maps for being too partisan. That ruling gave state lawmakers a new license to draw maps aimed at maximizing their own political advantage. It could bolster Republicans in the 2020 elections.Precedents OverturnedThe conservatives -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- also ruled that people could go directly to federal court to claim that a government regulation unconstitutionally took private property without compensation.That was one of two decisions that explicitly overturned a precedent. A 1985 ruling had required property owners to press their claims first in state court, a potentially less hospitable forum.Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling “smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” a contention Roberts disputed in his majority opinion.The five conservatives were also in the majority in a 5-4 ruling that let Missouri give a lethal injection to a convicted murderer who said his rare medical condition means he would probably choke on his own blood.Let’s Stick TogetherConservatives got a bigger majority, 7-2, for a ruling that let a 40-foot cross remain as a World War I memorial in a Maryland intersection. Alito’s opinion for the court was narrow, noting that the monument is almost a century old and leaving open the possibility that newer religious displays might be judged differently.Disagreements among the conservatives tempered their ability to shift the law. Each of the five joined the liberal wing -- Justices Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- at least once in a 5-4 or 5-3 ruling. The liberals won 10 cases in which they stuck together and were joined by a single conservative justice.Some of those rulings were narrow, better characterized as fending off conservative victories than pushing the law to the left. The liberals joined with Roberts to reaffirm a 1997 ruling that often requires judges to defer to an agency on the meaning of ambiguous regulations.That opinion limited the circumstances in which courts should yield to agencies -- so much so that Gorsuch said in dissent that the 1997 precedent had become a “paper tiger” and predicted it would eventually be overturned.Citizenship QuestionThe liberals also aligned with Roberts to put on hold the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the decennial census. Although Roberts agreed with the administration and his fellow conservatives on a number of points, he diverged enough to put in the plan in doubt.Roberts and the liberals said the administration’s explanation for the move was “contrived.” The Commerce Department now has a chance to provide better justification but will be racing the clock. The administration previously said the questionnaire needed to be finalized by June 30.“This term showed that it is not impossible to secure progressive victories in this court,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “But make no mistake, the Roberts court is deeply conservative and we saw several seeds planted” that she said “could bear fruit for an extreme conservative agenda in terms to come.”Libertarian GorsuchGorsuch joined the liberals four times, twice in criminal cases. He wrote the majority opinion striking down a provision that increased sentences for some people convicted of carrying a firearm during a violent crime, saying it was unconstitutionally vague.The ruling drew a sharp dissent from Kavanaugh, who called it a “serious mistake.” He said it “will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future.”Gorsuch has inherited the role of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he succeeded, as the court’s civil libertarian in criminal cases, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.“Like Scalia, Gorsuch’s opinions are not driven by empathy for those who break the law,” Blackman said. “Rather, he is generally skeptical of the federal government’s powers to deprive people of life, liberty and property.”Antitrust CaseThe firearms case wasn’t the only one that divided the two Trump appointees. Kavanaugh joined the liberals in an antitrust decision forcing Apple Inc. to defend against claims that it artificially inflated prices at its App Store. Gorsuch dissented with his fellow conservatives.The two Trump appointees agreed 70% of the time, identical to Kavanaugh’s agreement level with Breyer and Kagan, according to statistics compiled by scotusblog.com.But both “flexed their conservative bona fides” this term, said Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan.. They “willingly agreed to overturn several longstanding precedents in areas ranging from constitutional rights to administrative law.”That left Roberts controlling the court on its most important decisions.“This is now, truly, the Roberts court,” said Kannon Shanmugam, an appellate lawyer at Paul Weiss in Washington. “While the court’s general direction was not consistent, the chief justice played a pivotal role in the most important decisions.”To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at [email protected], Laurie Asséo, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2J2t8nS via IFTTT

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2KQsMD5

(Bloomberg) -- The arrivals of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court stoked liberal fears that bedrock precedents on divisive issues including abortion and federal regulatory power were in danger.That may still be true. But the term that ended last week showed that the road to fulfilling long-held conservative goals will feature some speed bumps.In the first term since Kavanaugh succeeded swing vote Anthony Kennedy, conservatives won a major ruling that shielded partisan gerrymanders from constitutional challenges. They also triumphed on property rights and the death penalty.Those victories were offset by a decision that, for now, stopped the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. Another ruling preserved some of the power of federal agencies, and the court has refused so far to take up an abortion case.The court is undoubtedly more conservative with President Donald Trump’s two appointees on the bench. As the nation moves into a long and contentious election season, the court’s move to the right will give Trump fuel to fire up his base and Democrats fodder for making the court a major campaign issue of their own.Conservative WinsBut the just-finished term underscores the limits to that shift, or at least to its speed.“There were major leaps -- for example, blessing partisan gerrymandering in federal court,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who founded scotusblog.com, which tracks the court. “But in other cases, the conservatives were content to just advance the law methodically.”In a term in which 21 rulings were decided by a single vote -- representing almost a third of the docket -- the conservatives formed a 5-4 majority only seven times.Some of those rulings were big ones, though, particularly the decision last week that said the Constitution doesn’t let judges throw out voting maps for being too partisan. That ruling gave state lawmakers a new license to draw maps aimed at maximizing their own political advantage. It could bolster Republicans in the 2020 elections.Precedents OverturnedThe conservatives -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- also ruled that people could go directly to federal court to claim that a government regulation unconstitutionally took private property without compensation.That was one of two decisions that explicitly overturned a precedent. A 1985 ruling had required property owners to press their claims first in state court, a potentially less hospitable forum.Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling “smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” a contention Roberts disputed in his majority opinion.The five conservatives were also in the majority in a 5-4 ruling that let Missouri give a lethal injection to a convicted murderer who said his rare medical condition means he would probably choke on his own blood.Let’s Stick TogetherConservatives got a bigger majority, 7-2, for a ruling that let a 40-foot cross remain as a World War I memorial in a Maryland intersection. Alito’s opinion for the court was narrow, noting that the monument is almost a century old and leaving open the possibility that newer religious displays might be judged differently.Disagreements among the conservatives tempered their ability to shift the law. Each of the five joined the liberal wing -- Justices Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- at least once in a 5-4 or 5-3 ruling. The liberals won 10 cases in which they stuck together and were joined by a single conservative justice.Some of those rulings were narrow, better characterized as fending off conservative victories than pushing the law to the left. The liberals joined with Roberts to reaffirm a 1997 ruling that often requires judges to defer to an agency on the meaning of ambiguous regulations.That opinion limited the circumstances in which courts should yield to agencies -- so much so that Gorsuch said in dissent that the 1997 precedent had become a “paper tiger” and predicted it would eventually be overturned.Citizenship QuestionThe liberals also aligned with Roberts to put on hold the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the decennial census. Although Roberts agreed with the administration and his fellow conservatives on a number of points, he diverged enough to put in the plan in doubt.Roberts and the liberals said the administration’s explanation for the move was “contrived.” The Commerce Department now has a chance to provide better justification but will be racing the clock. The administration previously said the questionnaire needed to be finalized by June 30.“This term showed that it is not impossible to secure progressive victories in this court,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “But make no mistake, the Roberts court is deeply conservative and we saw several seeds planted” that she said “could bear fruit for an extreme conservative agenda in terms to come.”Libertarian GorsuchGorsuch joined the liberals four times, twice in criminal cases. He wrote the majority opinion striking down a provision that increased sentences for some people convicted of carrying a firearm during a violent crime, saying it was unconstitutionally vague.The ruling drew a sharp dissent from Kavanaugh, who called it a “serious mistake.” He said it “will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future.”Gorsuch has inherited the role of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he succeeded, as the court’s civil libertarian in criminal cases, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.“Like Scalia, Gorsuch’s opinions are not driven by empathy for those who break the law,” Blackman said. “Rather, he is generally skeptical of the federal government’s powers to deprive people of life, liberty and property.”Antitrust CaseThe firearms case wasn’t the only one that divided the two Trump appointees. Kavanaugh joined the liberals in an antitrust decision forcing Apple Inc. to defend against claims that it artificially inflated prices at its App Store. Gorsuch dissented with his fellow conservatives.The two Trump appointees agreed 70% of the time, identical to Kavanaugh’s agreement level with Breyer and Kagan, according to statistics compiled by scotusblog.com.But both “flexed their conservative bona fides” this term, said Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan.. They “willingly agreed to overturn several longstanding precedents in areas ranging from constitutional rights to administrative law.”That left Roberts controlling the court on its most important decisions.“This is now, truly, the Roberts court,” said Kannon Shanmugam, an appellate lawyer at Paul Weiss in Washington. “While the court’s general direction was not consistent, the chief justice played a pivotal role in the most important decisions.”To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at [email protected], Laurie Asséo, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.