[Magdalen] The Supremes

[Roger Stokes]

On 28/06/2016 00:10, Jay Weigel wrote:
> I suppose Thomas and Alito were the "No" votes. I think those guys only no
> how to vote NO.

Alito was actually with the majprity on this one.  Sotomayor was the 
other (partial) dissenter.

Roger

> o
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Roger Stokes <roger.stokes65 at btinternet.com
>> wrote:
>> On 27/06/2016 17:58, M J _Mike_ Logsdon wrote:
>>
>>> The "abortion issue" seems to be the frontline issue that is inspiring
>>>>>> all kinds of other battles that chip away at previously settled laws and
>>>>>> protections that have only been settled in my adult life. It is as though
>>>>>> there is a subtle agenda  that these hot-button issues of the past which
>>>>>> have been resolved are being attacked on a scale akin to Chinese water
>>>>>> torture.<<<
>>>>>>
>>>>> As per the political platform specialists, it's been part of the GOP
>>> platform to overturn RvW since the beginning.  As for any goal for when to
>>> begin this chipping away, I'm unaware, but certainly the advent of the Tea
>>> Baggers appeared to be the current best shot.
>>>
>> The Supremes handed down another significant decision today.  This was
>> that somebody who has been convicted of the reckless (as well as
>> intentional and deliberate) dismeanour of domestic violence can be denied
>> the right to have a gun.  It's Voisine et al v United States on the Supreme
>> Court's website.  That was by a 6-2 majority.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>