cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16783334
8-1 with Thomas the dissent.
“The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”
He was absent today as I read.
I see that now at the end of the article; it’s his second absence.
Still, the ruling says 8-1. Did he rule for it in his absence? Or should the ruling actually be 7-1-1 (or something?)
With the court’s conservative lean, silence is consent
Maybe he’s dying.