Sotomayor rips Thomas’s bump stocks ruling in scathing dissent read from bench

[mystery-ak]

 Sotomayor rips Thomas’s bump stocks ruling in scathing dissent read from bench
by Nick Robertson - 06/14/24 11:01 AM ET

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a fiery dissent harshly denounced a Supreme Court ruling Friday that rejected a ban on bump stocks, saying it “eviscerates” the congressional regulation of machine guns.

“Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands,” Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “To do so, it casts aside Congress’s definition of ‘machinegun’ and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.”

The court ruled 6-3 against the Biden administration along ideological lines, finding that bans imposed by the Trump and Biden administrations — enacted by classifying bump stocks as machine guns — went too far.

“We conclude that [a] semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the decision.

Sotomayor rejected that reasoning.

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” she continued.

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4722209-sotomayor-rips-thomass-bump-stocks-ruling-in-scathing-dissent-read-from-bench/

[Wingnut]

She is a wise latino so she has that going for her.

[Hoodat]

Sotomayor's dissent is complete nonsense.  You can read it here, beginning on p. 25:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

"When I see a bird that walks like a
duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that
bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle
fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

The law clearly defines a "machine gun" as being fired "by a single function of the trigger".  The bump stock device manipulates repeated 'single functions' to achieve repeat fire.  But it doesn't change the FACT that it is still a single function trigger.

Sotomayor accurately quotes the law, and then subsequently ignores it completely, giving instead her view on what the law should have said.  And it is because of this tyrannical desire to mold and shape existing laws to enforce her personal views on society (without legislative validation) that no liberal should ever be given judical power.

[Bigun]

Sotomayor's dissent is complete nonsense.  You can read it here, beginning on p. 25:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

"When I see a bird that walks like a
duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that
bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle
fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

The law clearly defines a "machine gun" as being fired "by a single function of the trigger".  The bump stock device manipulates repeated 'single functions' to achieve repeat fire.  But it doesn't change the FACT that it is still a single function trigger.

Sotomayor accurately quotes the law, and then subsequently ignores it completely, giving instead her view on what the law should have said.  And it is because of this tyrannical desire to mold and shape existing laws to enforce her personal views on society (without legislative validation) that no liberal should ever be given judical power.

  And completely devoid of any legal reasoning what-so-ever!

[Free Vulcan]

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” she continued.

Fine, sophisticated legal reasoning there. 

Sotomeyer uses the mom defense, when you catch you mom in complete hypocritical contradiction to the known facts, and her response is 'because I'm your mother!'. Nanny lecturing, scolding, and finger wagging is not legal reasoning.

[GtHawk]

She is a wise latino so she has that going for her.

I always thought that intelligence, not necessarily book smarts, was a large part of wisdom so no she doesn't. And yes I do recognize the sarcasm in your post

[DCPatriot]

Soooo...the Left has less than 5 months before the Election to create a maximum death event involving the use of bump stocks.  /s

[Smokin Joe]

Soooo...the Left has less than 5 months before the Election to create a maximum death event involving the use of bump stocks.  /s

No doubt they are working on it. (NO /s)

[Kamaji]

Well, if the "wise latina" says it's so, then it must be so.

[PeteS in CA]

The decision, as written by Thomas, follows the plain language of the statute. Sotomayor and Progs want courts to be able to re-write statutes, which is not their constitutional function.

[Smokin Joe]

The decision, as written by Thomas, follows the plain language of the statute. Sotomayor and Progs want courts to be able to re-write statutes, which is not their constitutional function.

The bottom line of their legal reasoning is "Because I said so!", not the Law. No business on the bench, IMHO.