Smack Down of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Granite Grok

Smack Down of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

“We must remember that we have to make judges out of men, and that by being made judges their prejudices are not diminished and their intelligence is not increased.” —Robert G. Ingersoll

SmackdownSmack Down! This past Monday, something took place that is extremely rare. The United States Supreme Court rebuked the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Even more intriguing is SCOTUS was not even kind about it, referring to their reasoning as, “bordering on frivolous.”

Background: Jaime Caetano was in a volatile relationship with a man she had children with. After a series of violent altercations, she found herself homeless and in constant fear for her life. Despite Multiple restraining orders, she was constantly stalked by her estranged boyfriend who towered above her by over a foot and was about 100 pounds heavier. Thereafter, a friend offered her a stun gun for personal protection and she accepted it.

One night after leaving work, Caetano’s ex-boyfriend  was waiting for her outside. He began screaming at her… that she was “not gonna {expletive} work at this place” any more because she “should be home with the kids” they had together. She stood her ground, displayed the stun gun, and announced: “I’m not gonna take this anymore. . . . I don’t wanna have to use this on you, but if you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna have to. The ex-boyfriend  left her alone.”

SmackdownIn September 2011, police officers had contact with  Caetano surrounding an allegation of shoplifting.  Police obtained Caetano’s consent to search her purse. Despite no evidence of shoplifting found, Police did find Caetano’s stun gun. Explaining to the officers that she had acquired the weapon to defend herself against a violent ex-boyfriend, officers stated they believed Caetano, but arrested Caetano for violating Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131J, “which bans entirely the possession of an electrical weapon,” Caetano moved to dismiss the charge on Second Amendment grounds, but the trial court denied the motion. She was convicted. The SJC heard the appeal and upheld the conviction.

This case was heard by the United States Supreme Court and the decision was per curiam, which is a rare event when the entire court agrees unanimously. And it is rare that in overturning the state court that the Supreme Court of the United States does so in such a blistering rebuking manner.

“Although the Supreme Judicial Court professed to apply Heller, each step of its analysis defied Heller’s reasoning…” (emphasis added)

smackdownSCOTUS continues, implying that the SJC purposely framed their analysis, not to support principles of legal and judicial review, but to sustain the existing law. A clear judicial bias.

“The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693; see also id., at 779, 780, 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692, 693, 694. In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument“that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong,but “bordering on the frivolous.” 554 U. S., at 582.” (emphasis added)

Despite the considered dictum of SCOTUS in Heller, the SJC clearly maneuvered its way in  contortionist manner to reach their conclusion. Clearly, there was some supposition this case would not likely reach outside of the Commonwealth. A supposition that was a clear miscalculation, but typical of a politically wracked state court. SCOTUS called their reasoning, “frivolous,” that alone is a smackdown.

“Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (emphasis added).3 It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.

Here, we see SCOTUS basically telling us, “There it was in black and white print…plain as the nose on your faces…and you ignored it.” Or, as they say in South Boston, “What ah ya, Retahded?”

“The Supreme Judicial Court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual” rested largely on its premise that one must ask whether a weapon was commonly used in 1789. See 470 Mass., at 780–781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. As already discussed, that is simply wrong.”

smackdownThis very reasoning is thoroughly recognizable to we, the unwashed because hoplophobes and anti-gun solopsists persist with applying the reasoning that the Second Amendment was written for muskets and its application is for organized militaries. In the face of  Heller and McDonald, we still see this being advanced as a valid argument, as fallacious as it is. The SJC is packed with these Hoplophobe statist idiots.

“The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense.”

If there was ever any doubt in anyone’s mind whether or not the SJC is not a court of law, but of political policy, clearly, this case illustrates that fealty to the statist principle of keeping its citizenry unarmed and fully dependent on a state that will not defend its citizens.

“A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds…”

That rebuke of the Bay State rests on its own merits. I would wager that in the wake of this decision the SJC rebukes SCOTUS, sneers at them and defiantly plans to move forward as it always does.

This Supreme Court decision ends with this ominous comment:

“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

It is important to note this decision did in fact come from a “post-Scalia” court. Nevertheless, it remains important and both dire that the current balance of the court, as it was with Scalia, be maintained. The timing of the review of the SJC court is salient because it affirms and underscores the importance of choosing constitutionally bound justices as opposed to ideological progressive judges that see it their duty to legislate from the bench.

The SJC is a corrupt court that could care little about the constitutionality of peoples rights and instead opt for validating liberal, often unconstitutional edicts on people. There has to be a court in the land that will strike that balance and apply the constitution.

>