The US Supreme Court will rule on the right to have sex with your, ahem, fellow man--though such a right is nowhere to be found written in the Constitution. But it refuses to rule on the right to bear arms--a right that is expressly written as the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
What am I missing here?
Unless I miss my guess, Scalia or Thomas knew that this case was a loser, and voted against taking it.
Sometimes they don’t take a case if there’s another case coming through that tackles the constitutional issues a bit more clearly or in a more appealing way. For now, the case is only precedent out west. I’d have to check what’s on the docket elsewhere to be sure.
This case does not meet Sandra Daze “all-important first impression” test. There are no emanations from the penumbra to guide her.
