Interesting SCOTUS NRA 1st Amend. Ruling

[M-61]

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleged that a former New York state official violated the First Amendment by pressuring insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights organization.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of NRA in New York Challenge « Daily Bulletin

The NRA has scored a major legal victory, winning a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that New York State officials acted improperly in trying to influence multiple financial entities and insurance companies to halt their relationships with the NRA. <a...

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

“A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion on May 30.

Interesting because they do this in their appointed or elected position.
Does this mean Joe Biden can express his beliefs on what the very best car to buy is? Or the best beer to drink? Or where you should vacation?
Sure they have the 1st amendment right but in their position should this really be expressed?

 

[CJ6]

Celebrities have been doing this for years. Pushing their agendas on their fans based on their status. Internet influencers are the same. They are there for those who choose not to think for themselves.

 

[divingin]

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleged that a former New York state official violated the First Amendment by pressuring insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights organization.

“A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion on May 30.

Interesting because they do this in their appointed or elected position.
Does this mean Joe Biden can express his beliefs on what the very best car to buy is? Or the best beer to drink? Or where you should vacation?
Sure they have the 1st amendment right but in their position should this really be expressed?

Not sure I understand what your objection is. An elected official remains a private citizen when not performing duties; it would be rather un-American to limit their expression at those times.

IMO, there's a disconnect in the first two sentences: "pressuring insurance companies [to act a certain way]" is not the same as "share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead".

 

[JLT]

I can't believe I'm about to defend Justice Sotomayor, but here goes . . .

The rest of Justice Sotomayor's statement made a clear delineation between the personally held opinion of someone as a private citizen and the very same opinion directed at a regulated entity in the person's official regulatory or governmental capacity. The latter is coercive and, for all intents and purposes, constitutes an abuse of power on the part of the official. Her opinion affirms an individual's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but bringing those beliefs to bear in an official capacity in such a way as to abrogate the rights of others runs afoul of the Constitution of the United States. She got that right. For once.

ETA: Sotomayor's opinion was written for the majority. She actually sided with the NRA. I believe that is a first.

 

[M-61]

Not sure I understand what your objection is. An elected official remains a private citizen when not performing duties; it would be rather un-American to limit their expression at those times.

IMO, there's a disconnect in the first two sentences: "pressuring insurance companies [to act a certain way]" is not the same as "share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead".

Well I guess a quick answer to your first paragraph is answered in your second paragraph.
And to be a wise ass I could say the most un- American people I know are politicians.

 

[M-61]

I can't believe I'm about to defend Justice Sotomayor, but here goes

Me too. Especially involving anything with Letitia James

 

[marchx]

It's like Pope Francis preaching stuff expressing his personal views which may contradict the official catholic doctrine and the same Pope Francis speaking ex cathedra.
fourth chapter of Pastor aeternus:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility...

 

[Riesel]

It's like Pope Francis preaching stuff expressing his personal views which may contradict the official catholic doctrine and the same Pope Francis speaking ex cathedra.
fourth chapter of Pastor aeternus:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility...

Goodness, you typed a mouthful! !

 

[Jayplace]

I can't believe I'm about to defend Justice Sotomayor, but here goes . . .

The rest of Justice Sotomayor's statement made a clear delineation between the personally held opinion of someone as a private citizen and the very same opinion directed at a regulated entity in the person's official regulatory or governmental capacity. The latter is coercive and, for all intents and purposes, constitutes an abuse of power on the part of the official. Her opinion affirms an individual's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but bringing those beliefs to bear in an official capacity in such a way as to abrogate the rights of others runs afoul of the Constitution of the United States. She got that right. For once.

I'm glad someone read the opinion and actually understands it. I don't see that here often.

 

[M-61]

It's like Pope Francis preaching stuff expressing his personal views which may contradict the official catholic doctrine and the same Pope Francis speaking ex cathedra.
fourth chapter of Pastor aeternus:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility...

And separation of church and state? Doesn’t apply to him

 

[marchx]

And separation of church and state? Doesn’t apply to him

Someone intellectually unstable like Pope Francis should refrain from speaking ex cathedra at all. In case of Joe Biden or any other elected official there should be no difference between personal views and speaking ex cathedra. If you are an elected official you keep your personal views to yourself. Sorry it does not apply to Pope Francis.

 

[M-61]

If you are an elected official you keep your personal views to yourself

Exactly.
In my opening statement I said elected OR appointed.

 

[Just Say Moe]

Sounds like racketeering. Any competent prosecutors in NY?

 

[JLT]

I'm glad someone read the opinion and actually understands it. I don't see that here often.

Thanks.

This is an interesting case, and the outcome is gratifying in the sense that all nine of the justices walked the walk. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson-Brown (not the 'Runnin' on Empty' guy . . . ) are hardly friends of the NRA or the 2A, but all three set that aside with respect to the facts of this case. Think about it for a bit. All is not lost. SCOTUS spoke with one voice, protecting the NRA from the unscrupulous acts of a New York State apparatchik. It was a unanimous decision. I'll bet Mothers' Day wouldn't get a 9-0 out of this crew.

 

[divingin]

If you are an elected official you keep your personal views to yourself. Sorry it does not apply to Pope Francis.

Not catholic, so not going to talk about the pope, other than to say he's not bound by US laws, so I see no connection to this thread.

Marchx, you're saying that elected officials are automatically stripped of their constitutional rights?

 

[FNSafari]

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleged that a former New York state official violated the First Amendment by pressuring insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights organization.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of NRA in New York Challenge « Daily Bulletin

The NRA has scored a major legal victory, winning a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that New York State officials acted improperly in trying to influence multiple financial entities and insurance companies to halt their relationships with the NRA. <a...

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

“A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion on May 30.

Interesting because they do this in their appointed or elected position.
Does this mean Joe Biden can express his beliefs on what the very best car to buy is? Or the best beer to drink? Or where you should vacation?
Sure they have the 1st amendment right but in their position should this really be expressed?

If that moron had his way we would not be cooking with gas or propane, driving fossil fuel cars, owning many different types of firearms and on and on. Just go away you BOZO. Remember this in November on election day!!

 

[FNSafari]

Vullo knew full well they were in violation of the First Amendment. They are shameless autocrats. When one view rules the day we are on our way to a dictatorship. Kudos the the US Supreme Court. Now will the NRA be reimbursed for their legal costs and receive a substantial punitive damages award?

 

[marchx]

Not catholic, so not going to talk about the pope, other than to say he's not bound by US laws, so I see no connection to this thread.

Marchx, you're saying that elected officials are automatically stripped of their constitutional rights?

no.

 

[Just Say Moe]

Vullo knew full well they were in violation of the First Amendment. They are shameless autocrats. When one view rules the day we are on our way to a dictatorship. Kudos the the US Supreme Court. Now will the NRA be reimbursed for their legal costs and receive a substantial punitive damages award?

They know they will get away with blatantly unconstitutional acts for a few years until an upper court rules against them. That is how we got all of the Covid lockdown, New Orleans gun confiscation, etc.

 

[RED DIRT]

Here comes your reality check.... spend it wisely!

Everybody keeps DREAMING of all the win`s, for THE PEOPLE! Keep dreaming, it isn`t coming.

It doesn`t matter what ANY of the suits & robes say. For every one case that THE PEOPLE, win, there are hundreds of more cases that the elites have in the pipeline to take THE PEOPLE, down. It`s a damn shame THE PEOPLE, cant` see how THEY are WINNING, and WE, are NOT. They steal you blind through taxation, regulate you, make laws against you, which feeds THEIR illegal cause`s & agenda`s, against, YOU, in which you will never win, because YOU, WE, THE PEOPLE, keep feeding them MONEY. To SEAL THE DEAL, we are headed towards a cashless society very fast. And why is that....... DUH! SO THAT THEY CAN CONTROL WHAT YOU BUY, AND THEY`LL HAVE 100% ACCESS TO ALL OF YOUR (DIGITAL) MONEY!

Nobody would listen MANY decades ago. Most ignored what had been coming, and now here we are.
How much longer do YOU, think this country stands ???? The answer is, our country is already GONE!
After WWII, American`s screwed the pooch! Death by a thousand cuts, due to ignorance & stupidity.

Maybe vote harder next time? Good luck with that.






Post #20