Nah I know that there are corrupt judges on the highest court of the land. That is undeniable. Whether or not Clinton and trump not getting prosecuted means the judiciary is or isn’t corrupt is an opinion.

But fax are that Thomas was bribed. Heavily and chronically

Are you able explain your specific claim, and its relevance to this thread?

I know what the answer to this question is "no", but entertain me and try.

Not relevant

That's not going to happen.

A more realistic workaround for this particular issue would be that since the majority of spouse killers turn the gun on themselves (suicidal), figure out how to get mental health services, with their broad range of coercive powers and fewer legal hoops to jump through, involved.

I'm surprised he's surprised tbh. Obviously 2nd amendment absolutism is ridiculous on it's face in 2023, but why would anyone expect far right arguments to make sense to begin with?

He's saying he would have been surprised when he was in law school, which was several decades ago.

I don't think he is in a position to express such thoughts as strongly as you did even if he thinks them. (By the way he started at Berkely as a physics major major.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David Alan Sklansky is an American lawyer who is currently the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford Law School (since 2014).[1][2]

Early life
Sklansky grew up in Newport Beach, California.[3]

Education
A.B. in Biophysics, Highest Honors, UC Berkeley, 1981
JD, Harvard University, magna cum laude, 1984[4]
Career

Sklansky taught at U.C. Berkeley and UCLA before teaching at Stanford. Before teaching, he practiced labor law in Washington, D.C. and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles.[5]


David Alan Sklansky is a professor of law at Stanford Law School. He teaches and writes about criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. His scholarship has addressed the law, sociology, and political science of policing; the relationship between criminal justice and democracy; the proper exercise and constraint of prosecutorial power; the interpretation and application of the Fourth Amendment; fairness and accuracy in criminal adjudication; the relationship between criminal justice and immigration laws; the history of the hearsay rule and its connection with American slavery; ideas about violence in criminal law; and the role of race, gender, and sexual orientation in law enforcement. He is faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, a faculty affiliate of Stanford’s Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, and a member of the American Law Institute. In 2017 he received the law school’s John Bingham Hurlbut Award for Excellence in Teaching. Sklansky received his BA from UC Berkeley in 1981 and his JD from Harvard University in 1984. You can find more information about him on his Stanford Law School profile page or his Wikipedia page.

Really? Wow, that's pretty impressive. Surprised you haven't mentioned him before.

Brings back memories of the good old days when DS was attacked for donating to the Republicans

Haven't followed most of this thread, which is silly. Just popping in to say that OP seems to suggest that SCOTUS is going to rule in Rahimi's favor in this case. I think it is far more likely that the Court is going to rule in favor of the administration and clarify Bruen.

Is this true? My impression is that it is not.

Maybe, idk, didn't do a deep dive but:
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/feature...mpound-tragedy

Such a weird question. No one will have any idea what kind of president your cousin would make from a couple of emails. Chances are he would, as would many other people. Are you testing the waters before he put his name forward or something?

This wasn't really the point of the OP, but I agree with your prediction.

I read DS as saying the "right" decision would be to rule for the government, but the "correct" decision would be to rule for Rahimi based upon the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence, and that it would be interesting to have some sort of super-supreme court to review such decisions. I think the premise that the "correct" decision is to rule for Rahimi is flawed. Maybe I misunderstood the post, or the Rahimi case is just a jumping off point for a discussion of a super-supreme court. In which case, my response is, "'Wouldn't we then be asking for a super-super-supreme court?"

Fair enough, I appreciate a professor at Stanford might temper his language, as I would on platforms related to my career.

I guess given your cousin's background,I would ask if his surprise was largely political? He did not think the politics of gun control and the nation as a whole would get to the point where the Supreme Court would have justices like we may have now? Or he thinks some technical legal argument disproves the other side on the case? I can understand the former.

The latter is strange to me. Its kinda like he story about Godel claiming he found a "flaw" in the Constitution. There was a random mathoverflow low content thread that I guess has been deleted. But nobody had any good sourcing and everyone thought it was something dumb like make a new amendment undoing the rest of the constitution then do whatever. Yeah fine that works. But no constitution can prevent enough powerful people ignoring it and just doing what they want.

Dershowitz-ical