User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:23:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, you could make that argument but why would you? Precedent does not matter with the SCOTUS as they are not bound by other SCOTUS decisions (theoretically, they are bound only by the text of the Constitution along with any further limitations set by Congress). They have reversed their own positions numerous times in the last 220+ some odd years. Unless your argument would be "SCOTUS has ruled in ways contrary to the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution in the past ergo this is not new or surprising" in which case I would say you had a point. To anyone paying attention who thinks this case (Obergefell v. Hodges) will help 2A jurisprudence, I have bad news for you: 4 of the 5 justices who voted in the majority were the same 4 who voted against Heller, McDonald, and would not have a problem reversing either Heller or McDonald on a future case. Take a look on what Alan Gura has said on what he thinks about certain SCOTUS jurists following Heller and McDonald and it will chill your blood. I do not care what one, two, or half a dozen + people do in their own homes or on their own property but this was an incredibly horrific ruling that will haunt this country for decades upon decades to come. Take a look around at how the lower courts are interpreting Heller and McDonald and behold just how little stare decisisi actually means (Bonidy vs USPS is a good example). We're in deep **** here folks.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set. Sure, you could make that argument but why would you? Precedent does not matter with the SCOTUS as they are not bound by other SCOTUS decisions (theoretically, they are bound only by the text of the Constitution along with any further limitations set by Congress). They have reversed their own positions numerous times in the last 220+ some odd years. Unless your argument would be "SCOTUS has ruled in ways contrary to the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution in the past ergo this is not new or surprising" in which case I would say you had a point. To anyone paying attention who thinks this case (Obergefell v. Hodges) will help 2A jurisprudence, I have bad news for you: 4 of the 5 justices who voted in the majority were the same 4 who voted against Heller, McDonald, and would not have a problem reversing either Heller or McDonald on a future case. Take a look on what Alan Gura has said on what he thinks about certain SCOTUS jurists following Heller and McDonald and it will chill your blood. I do not care what one, two, or half a dozen + people do in their own homes or on their own property but this was an incredibly horrific ruling that will haunt this country for decades upon decades to come. Take a look around at how the lower courts are interpreting Heller and McDonald and behold just how little stare decisisi actually means (Bonidy vs USPS is a good example). We're in deep **** here folks. This is the road I was eventually going to go down, but I didn't figure it was all that useful. The SCOTUS has always done shit like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:31:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the road I was eventually going to go down, but I didn't figure it was all that useful. The SCOTUS has always done shit like this. I agree. (A) The SCOTUS is out of control (and arguably has been for the better part of a century) and our Congress is either unable or unwilling to impeach or vote to limit the SCOTUS. (B) There are not enough votes in Congress for a traditional Constitutional Amendment to pass and go to the states for ratification. (C) A seemingly large chunk of people are scared ****less of an Article V convention (and I cannot say their fears are unfounded) that could potentially be used to limit a runaway SCOTUS. (D) The majority of our populous, at least the ones I meet/live around/interact with, are so busy with their personal lives and their jobs/kids/wives/girlfriends/bils/debts/medicalproblems/sports team losing/American Idol/etc they do not pay attention to what is going on or they simply do not care, and/or they lack the ability to focus longer than what you can fit on a bumper sticker to be educated on the issues so they are not going to elect the people needed to right the ship of state. All I have left is trying to educate every person I meet/know/see and that only goes so far (see D). Apart from that, I have no idea what we can do to fix this problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:41:55 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<snip> Apart from that, I have no idea what we can do to fix this problem. Sadly, we're the orchestra playing on the deck of the Titanic as it sinks. Most of the American electorate is happy to remain utterly clueless as to how our supposed self-governance works. Amazing how that happens when the majority are educated in government schools. It's as if it was the goal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:08:25 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once those assholes get one of those seats, all bets are off. FOR FUCKING LIFE. The Constitution is less than toilet paper to those lower specimens of the lawyer sub species. The next Congress needs to impeach the whole lot of traitorous shitheads, then execute them all, by wood chipper. Time to start over with a fresh batch of black dress wearing pieces of shit. 
You surely don't include Scalia, Alito, and Thomas in that! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:18:26 AM EDT
[#5]
Duh. You can lie to the kafir.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 10:23:12 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do I get the impression Libertarians are unwittingly being used by the Democrat party to further the Democrat agenda? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom. I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends. Sit back and enjoy your Freedom. Why do I get the impression Libertarians are unwittingly being used by the Democrat party to further the Democrat agenda? Not unwittingly. They lead the democrat party on democrat party progressive agendas. Same buzzwords, same catch phrases, same conspiracy theories. The goal is not to win...elections, the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible...You’re right when you say “No candidate is good enough” for us, no matter who runs for office we will tear him down because nobody has the right to be our ruler. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/libertarians-arent-trying-to-win.html 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:01:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. (A) The SCOTUS is out of control (and arguably has been for the better part of a century) and our Congress is either unable or unwilling to impeach or vote to limit the SCOTUS. (B) There are not enough votes in Congress for a traditional Constitutional Amendment to pass and go to the states for ratification. (C) A seemingly large chunk of people are scared ****less of an Article V convention (and I cannot say their fears are unfounded) that could potentially be used to limit a runaway SCOTUS. (D) The majority of our populous, at least the ones I meet/live around/interact with, are so busy with their personal lives and their jobs/kids/wives/girlfriends/bils/debts/medicalproblems/sports team losing/American Idol/etc they do not pay attention to what is going on or they simply do not care, and/or they lack the ability to focus longer than what you can fit on a bumper sticker to be educated on the issues so they are not going to elect the people needed to right the ship of state. All I have left is trying to educate every person I meet/know/see and that only goes so far (see D). Apart from that, I have no idea what we can do to fix this problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is the road I was eventually going to go down, but I didn't figure it was all that useful. The SCOTUS has always done shit like this. I agree. (A) The SCOTUS is out of control (and arguably has been for the better part of a century) and our Congress is either unable or unwilling to impeach or vote to limit the SCOTUS. (B) There are not enough votes in Congress for a traditional Constitutional Amendment to pass and go to the states for ratification. (C) A seemingly large chunk of people are scared ****less of an Article V convention (and I cannot say their fears are unfounded) that could potentially be used to limit a runaway SCOTUS. (D) The majority of our populous, at least the ones I meet/live around/interact with, are so busy with their personal lives and their jobs/kids/wives/girlfriends/bils/debts/medicalproblems/sports team losing/American Idol/etc they do not pay attention to what is going on or they simply do not care, and/or they lack the ability to focus longer than what you can fit on a bumper sticker to be educated on the issues so they are not going to elect the people needed to right the ship of state. All I have left is trying to educate every person I meet/know/see and that only goes so far (see D). Apart from that, I have no idea what we can do to fix this problem. I agree, well said. It's very unfortunate that many can't seem to get comfortable with (C), but there's momentum behind it, and last week definitely helped. Two simple amendments, one that repeals the 17th amendment and one that establishes term limits for all federal judges, including SCOTUS, would have immediate, significant benefits. I think an Art V convention will happen, but it appears it will take longer to get there than 2-3 legislative sessions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:11:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She "evolved" in her thinking. She didn't lie -- you see. And you are too obtuse to know the difference. .....now pick up that can ! You forgot to take his wallet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:20:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:23:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They ignored their duty to uphold the constitution. So ignore their interpretation of a "law". Anomie. We are living it. The old rules don't apply. People think we are going forward. We are going backward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:25:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. Well, that simply isn't true. And if you believe anything that's said at a Supreme Court nomination hearing, you're a mark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:27:14 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:29:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Kagan and Ginsburg have both officiated at LGBT weddings.
They should have recused themselves from the ruling on this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:30:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom. I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends. Sit back and enjoy your Freedom. I've seen plenty of libertarians on here, including myself, say that the federal govt does not have the authority to force states into accepting gay marriage. 10th amendment, etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:33:30 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 1:52:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen plenty of libertarians on here, including myself, say that the federal govt does not have the authority to force states into accepting gay marriage. 10th amendment, etc... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom. I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends. Sit back and enjoy your Freedom. I've seen plenty of libertarians on here, including myself, say that the federal govt does not have the authority to force states into accepting gay marriage. 10th amendment, etc... I've seen plenty more celebrating the decision. Here. Today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:10:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before. Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too. Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set. read the retard/bingo post further up in the thread again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:33:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind.
Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:37:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind. Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:39:51 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about 3+ consenting adults? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind. Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:42:14 PM EDT
[#21]
They didn't need any legal horsepower for this deecision, they just followed their heart.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:42:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:47:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And what if everyone gets HBOGO and watches Big Love, and polygamy really takes off. Say 20% of the male population are unable to get married or have kids like in the Middle East. What are the social consequences of that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. Shirley U. Jest? Just because it's legal by no means makes it inevitable. Your "argument" is very much like the opposition to CCW = streets flowing with blood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:49:08 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And what if everyone gets HBOGO and watches Big Love, and polygamy really takes off. Say 20% of the male population are unable to get married or have kids like in the Middle East. What are the social consequences of that? Much different from two individuals of the same sex getting married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:50:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 3:33:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You Liberals have to say stuff like that lie to get through confirmation hearings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 3:55:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Much different from two individuals of the same sex getting married. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And what if everyone gets HBOGO and watches Big Love, and polygamy really takes off. Say 20% of the male population are unable to get married or have kids like in the Middle East. What are the social consequences of that? Much different from two individuals of the same sex getting married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 3:58:03 PM EDT
[#28]
evolved like Benedict Arnold evolved
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:00:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree 100%. That's why if the legislature legalized gay marriage or civil union it is no issue. Then you can just say polygamy is icky so no. But with a newly invented right, it will be entertaining to see the legal gymnastics when polygamists and others start demanding recognition of their right to marry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And what if everyone gets HBOGO and watches Big Love, and polygamy really takes off. Say 20% of the male population are unable to get married or have kids like in the Middle East. What are the social consequences of that? Much different from two individuals of the same sex getting married. Polygamists should have an even EASIER case to make, because not only do they have the lame 14th Equal Protection justification, they ALSO have 1st Amendment, Free Exercise Thereof justifications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:05:23 PM EDT
[#30]
I saw this movie, it had Sinatra in it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:36:14 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Polygamists should have an even EASIER case to make, because not only do they have the lame 14th Equal Protection justification, they ALSO have 1st Amendment, Free Exercise Thereof justifications.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:39:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, if you apply logic or something. But remember that polygamists are also generally creepy Mormon fundamentalists and liberals hate those. Whatever the opinion is, it will look like a drunk coed on Spring Break wrote it.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Polygamists should have an even EASIER case to make, because not only do they have the lame 14th Equal Protection justification, they ALSO have 1st Amendment, Free Exercise Thereof justifications.
Muslims, dude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:42:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. Right there. Sotomayor said the 2A was "settled law" during her hearings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:45:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Muslims, dude. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Polygamists should have an even EASIER case to make, because not only do they have the lame 14th Equal Protection justification, they ALSO have 1st Amendment, Free Exercise Thereof justifications. Muslims, dude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:52:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sotomayor said the 2A was "settled law" during her hearings. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. Right there. Sotomayor said the 2A was "settled law" during her hearings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:53:32 PM EDT
[#36]
I knew those two dykes would be big trouble. Fuck the Republicans for letting them be confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 4:59:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do I get the impression Libertarians are unwittingly being used by the Democrat party to further the Democrat agenda? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom. I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends. Sit back and enjoy your Freedom. Why do I get the impression Libertarians are unwittingly being used by the Democrat party to further the Democrat agenda? you almost had it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:04:14 PM EDT
[#38]
I kind of believe she is correct. It the US stopped recognizing any marriages - then no-ones rights would be violated. There probably is no constitutional requirement that government recognize any marriage.
Now should we recognized Holy marriage, civil marriage, common law marriage, well guess we might as well recognize unholy marriage - we recognize all the other versions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:10:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You surely don't include Scalia, Alito, and Thomas in that! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Once those assholes get one of those seats, all bets are off. FOR FUCKING LIFE. The Constitution is less than toilet paper to those lower specimens of the lawyer sub species. The next Congress needs to impeach the whole lot of traitorous shitheads, then execute them all, by wood chipper. Time to start over with a fresh batch of black dress wearing pieces of shit.
You surely don't include Scalia, Alito, and Thomas in that! Lol well of course not. Because they say things you like. Everyone here only hates "activist" courts when they go against their own opinions and ideology. The leftist sights literally parrot the exact same responses when it's something they don't like. Here is the bottom line.....there shouldn't be such a thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" judge. A cases outcome should not be predetermined by the political make up of the court, as everyone here seems to prefer (well until it's 5 liberals and 4 conservatives at least). A fucking judge should be 100% unbiased and nonpartisan. They should interpret the cases without prejudice and rule on the letter and constitutionality of the law, no matter which side that puts them on. Of course, neither side wants this...including most here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:11:30 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kagan and Ginsburg have both officiated at LGBT weddings. They should have recused themselves from the ruling on this issue. If Scalia owns an AR15, should he recuse himself at the next 2a ruling? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:16:40 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e6/fa/ce/e6facee6882ddfc676bf54194d55d5f0.jpg 
most funny post of the day |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:18:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once those assholes get one of those seats, all bets are off. FOR FUCKING LIFE. The Constitution is less than toilet paper to those lower specimens of the lawyer sub species. The next Congress needs to impeach the whole lot of traitorous shitheads, then execute them all, by wood chipper. Time to start over with a fresh batch of black dress wearing pieces of shit.
Yer gettin" a supeenie! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:21:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always assumed she was a lesbian anyway. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:25:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? It's a little different for a judge than it is for you. I'm not a stone mason. So if I am trying to decide whether to use stone, brick, or some faux product to build a fire pit out back, I might change my mind a couple of times during the process. However, if I hire a stonemason with 30+ years of experience, I don't expect to get a call from the stone mason half-way through the project saying he's changed his mind about the best way to build the fire pit. So, yes, I do see a problem with someone having that level of experience and immersion in the field but yet such an unsettled opinion on the matter. It would indicate that she lacked the requisite experience to begin with, which would disqualify her, or she lacked the authenticity to honestly speak her true thoughts, which should also disqualify her from service. What novel argument was she exposed to that suddenly caused her to pull a 180 on the issue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:26:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind. Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. Actually, they do. There are many different types of contracts and many contract laws stating who and what may contract what and where and how. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:33:45 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. And that's the scary part. Out of one side of their mouths these people have no problem with the SCOTUS creating a right that was not intended when the document was drafted. But yet they are offended by the idea that the SCOTUS might not adhere to original intent with the 2A is involved. Choose a freakin' side already. You are either OK or not OK with an unelected judiciary creating law where there is none. Thinking it's OK when it suits you but not OK when it doesn't is not a good plan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:40:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? Yes. It's the same disease at work. Convenient to the judicial activists that find the legislature too timid and the voting public too slow to come around to the judiciary's superior level of reasoning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:43:57 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before. Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too. Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set. The precedent arguably applies to the right being debated, not the practice of judicial activism in general. If your point is that judicial activists gonna activist, you're right in that regard. Which is why I'm not surprised at the decision, despite my outrage over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:51:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind. Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. Isn't a civil union a contract? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:52:57 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't a civil union a contract? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind. Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. Isn't a civil union a contract? Prenuptial agreements have been around for how long? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
