As the Supreme Court has already heard arguments in a case revolving around gun rights for marijuana users, it seems clear that the justices aren't going to be siding with the Department of Justice on this case.
And that has the New York Times wondering if that would restore Hunter Biden's law license.
Yes, really. That's something they actually wrote about.
Yes, on purpose.
When President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pardoned Hunter Biden last year just days before leaving office, he shielded his son from the threat of prison.
But formally forgiving Hunter Biden’s crimes did not technically erase his convictions, nor did it ensure he got to keep his law license.
The former president’s son is now looking to another powerful source for additional help: the Supreme Court.
He is hoping that a favorable ruling in a case the court is hearing on Monday could clear a path to undo his gun conviction and eventually help him restore his license to practice law. The case challenges the constitutionality of the gun statute under which Mr. Biden was convicted in 2024.
“It would be a small step in getting back some of what I lost,” Mr. Biden told The New York Times, adding that he had been watching the case closely.
At issue is a law enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which makes it illegal for “an unlawful user” of drugs or someone who is “addicted” to them to have a gun. Lawmakers passed the legislation in response to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
Mr. Biden’s interest is a reminder that the case, which was brought by a Texas gun owner who was arrested after admitting to using marijuana, could have major implications for millions of Americans who use the drug or struggle with addiction.
Except that while the justices seem inclined to rule that marijuana use doesn't warrant one being stripped of their gun rights, marijuana also seems to be in a kind of a legal limbo. It's still technically illegal at the federal level, which is why using it habitually causes one to lose their gun rights under current law; the feds have overlooked state-level legalization. Marijuana dispensaries are common in states like California and Colorado, and so it seems incongruent to enforce one set of federal laws about a substance while ignoring others.
It's likely that the justices will look at that and reach a limited ruling, probably just about marijuana use.
However, Hunter Biden wasn't using pot. He was doing the hard stuff, the kind of thing Dave Chappelle makes fun of. The former First-Crackhead was convicted not of recreational use of a substance that happened to be legal in some states. He was addicted to the kind of drugs that, if he'd had fewer resources to draw from, would have had him out on the streets turning tricks.
That's not likely to be covered at all when the Court issues its ruling.
Perhaps more importantly, though, why would anyone at the New York Times care? It's not like anyone with any sense would want Hunter Biden representing them for anything. It's not like he's going to go hook up with a law firm and have a stellar career as a litigator. So why are they asking?
Maybe because they miss the days of the kiddy-sniffer-in-chief so badly that they want to keep talking about him as much as possible?
