User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:22:07 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what if they face legal challenges. No one and nothing has immunity from legal proceedings. But they do have the trump card of the 1st Amendment which is also viewed through the lens of compelling interest and those legal challenges will fail if the system has integrity. Which conservatives swear it does when their jackboot is on someone's neck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When the Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court, he conceded that religious universities and charities WILL face legal challenges and issues if the court ruled in favor of gay marriage. So what if they face legal challenges. No one and nothing has immunity from legal proceedings. But they do have the trump card of the 1st Amendment which is also viewed through the lens of compelling interest and those legal challenges will fail if the system has integrity. Which conservatives swear it does when their jackboot is on someone's neck. 
You are special. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:22:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
  [lol
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court, he conceded that religious universities and charities WILL face legal challenges and issues if the court ruled in favor of gay marriage. So what if they face legal challenges. No one and nothing has immunity from legal proceedings. But they do have the trump card of the 1st Amendment which is also viewed through the lens of compelling interest and those legal challenges will fail if the system has integrity. [lol
Meanwhile you stroke one off to the FISA court allowing the resumption of bulk collection. LOL indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:23:09 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............ It was amended long ago the 14th A is it. Individuals have rights which no state or majority can interfere with, votes or not. And deciding whether something falls under the 14A is subjective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:25:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't it really what is compelling to the judge/judges sitting on the court? The base assumption is that the state is wrong, and the state has to convince the judges that their reasons are compelling. So yes, but I prefer that the majority of judges start from that view and place a very high hurdle infront of the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:25:51 AM EDT
[#5]
When you think about it, there is no Constitutional right to be able to get married, period.
Things not covered in the Constitution are left to either the individual state or the people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:26:28 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The base assumption is that the state is wrong, and the state has to convince the judges that their reasons are compelling. So yes, but I prefer that the majority of judges start from that view and place a very high hurdle infront of the state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it really what is compelling to the judge/judges sitting on the court? The base assumption is that the state is wrong, and the state has to convince the judges that their reasons are compelling. So yes, but I prefer that the majority of judges start from that view and place a very high hurdle infront of the state. OK, I'll go along with that. Now, do you really believe that works and happens, in practice (reality)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:26:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And deciding whether something falls under the 14A is subjective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............ It was amended long ago the 14th A is it. Individuals have rights which no state or majority can interfere with, votes or not. And deciding whether something falls under the 14A is subjective. 
I'm out this is getting STUPID. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:27:07 AM EDT
[#8]
There once was a State interest in Marriage - because an insolvable marriage that was open to life was the best way to create the next generation of human resources for the state.
We gutted that based on public opinion. We created no fault divorces that caused countless children to no longer be raised in a complete family. Then we created a welfare system to give them at least a chance. But welfare is not the most cost effective or most productive way for the state to generate the next generation of human resources. We gutted it a second time, by public opinion when we sterilized marriage (pretty sure this was also done with a supp ream court ruling about 100 years ago) - I don't know the statistics, but I bet more babies are born out of wed lock than within - because the stability of most marriages tend to involve not only birth control - but the current most popular is sterilization. Now with temporary marriages that do not generate the next generation of human resources - it is much harder to argue the state has a vested interest in marriage. Marriage was redefined, but it was done by the vast majority of the people, and done quite some time ago. --- I personally feel that as redefined, it should become civil union, as it has nothing to due with what Marriage was 150 years ago. Let Churches perform Holy Marriage. Let justices preform civil marriages if they must use the words (and call them civil marriages) - but let the state and federal governments ONLY legally recognize civil unions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:28:23 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I'll go along with that. Now, do you really believe that works and happens, in practice (reality)? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it really what is compelling to the judge/judges sitting on the court? The base assumption is that the state is wrong, and the state has to convince the judges that their reasons are compelling. So yes, but I prefer that the majority of judges start from that view and place a very high hurdle infront of the state. OK, I'll go along with that. Now, do you really believe that works and happens, in practice (reality)? Not always because we have judges that view everything through their own special lens. I just happen to like it when government gets it's hands tied and people get to do things without government fucking with them. Anything, anytime, I'm good with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:28:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meanwhile you stroke one off to the FISA court allowing the resumption of bulk collection. LOL indeed. Why are you concerned about data collection? "If the system has integrity" you're protected under the 4th Amendment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:29:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meanwhile you stroke one off to the FISA court allowing the resumption of bulk collection. LOL indeed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court, he conceded that religious universities and charities WILL face legal challenges and issues if the court ruled in favor of gay marriage. So what if they face legal challenges. No one and nothing has immunity from legal proceedings. But they do have the trump card of the 1st Amendment which is also viewed through the lens of compelling interest and those legal challenges will fail if the system has integrity.
Meanwhile you stroke one off to the FISA court allowing the resumption of bulk collection. LOL indeed. What? You don't respect the integrity of that system?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:30:24 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you think about it, there is no Constitutional right to be able to get married, period. Things not covered in the Constitution are left to either the individual state or the people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you think about it, there is no Constitutional right to be able to get married, period. Things not covered in the Constitution are left to either the individual state or the people. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Define the words in red. This isn't as black as white as many want it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:30:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm out this is getting STUPID. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............ It was amended long ago the 14th A is it. Individuals have rights which no state or majority can interfere with, votes or not. And deciding whether something falls under the 14A is subjective.
I'm out this is getting STUPID. My point overall is you seem to think objective standards can apply to things of this nature and they simply cannot IMHO. The bottom line in these types of issues involves subjectivity and simply cannot be decided on objectivity solely. Why you cannot acknowledge this as a basic fact is surprising to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:31:18 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not always because we have judges that view everything through their own special lens. I just happen to like it when government gets it's hands tied and people get to do things without government fucking with them. Anything, anytime, I'm good with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it really what is compelling to the judge/judges sitting on the court? The base assumption is that the state is wrong, and the state has to convince the judges that their reasons are compelling. So yes, but I prefer that the majority of judges start from that view and place a very high hurdle infront of the state. OK, I'll go along with that. Now, do you really believe that works and happens, in practice (reality)? Not always because we have judges that view everything through their own special lens. I just happen to like it when government gets it's hands tied and people get to do things without government fucking with them. Anything, anytime, I'm good with it. I find it difficult to argue with that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:32:07 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Define the words in red. This isn't as black as white as many want it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When you think about it, there is no Constitutional right to be able to get married, period. Things not covered in the Constitution are left to either the individual state or the people. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Define the words in red. This isn't as black as white as many want it. You can't.............well I can (  ) but it would be subjective and someone might disagree and they think they are right and might be right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:38:20 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Define the words in red. This isn't as black as white as many want it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Define the words in red. This isn't as black as white as many want it. Define marriage when those words in red were written. Would a ruling on legalizing civil unions cover all those words in red? By changing the definition of marriage, doesn't that open a Pandora's box? Especially when you consider those words in red and how certain religious groups, which have become a protected minority define marriage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:40:40 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I repeat, in Michigan gay marriage was voted down by the electorate. The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. They made a subjective determination and Justice Kennedy even admitted to it being subjective in so many words. For the basic reasons I stated, Michigan voted it down...............they felt it was compelling, the SCOTUS did not feel it was compelling. To arrive at that conclusion, both sides used subjectivity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............ Compelling interest is a test for the interest of the STATE. What another person FEELS is not in question at all. The state has to prove a legitimate governmental need. I repeat, in Michigan gay marriage was voted down by the electorate. The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. They made a subjective determination and Justice Kennedy even admitted to it being subjective in so many words. For the basic reasons I stated, Michigan voted it down...............they felt it was compelling, the SCOTUS did not feel it was compelling. To arrive at that conclusion, both sides used subjectivity. How quickly things change and everyone starts singing the "but, but the 51% wanted...." when it's something you agree with. If you don't agree, it's all "two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:42:09 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.............. How quickly things change and everyone starts singing the "but, but the 51% wanted...." when it's something you agree with. If you don't agree, it's all "two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner". I personally voted for gay marriage being allowed but believe this is a state issue and the Federal government does not constitutionally have the right to overturn it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 11:44:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Yes I read the article.
The author conflates the striking down of federal laws as being the same as striking down state laws to make a false point. when they are actually two entirely different subjects The clash of philosophies is the subject of an excellent recent book Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court. Author Damon Root, a senior editor at Reason, explores the great divide between those justices who believe that, with only rare exceptions, they should defer to the presumed wisdom of the politicians when laws are challenged, and those justices who believe they should skeptically examine such laws with no deference given. That’s the deferential philosophy at work. Let laws stand if at all possible. Then, having shown a few examples of the court deferring to state laws being upheld in a nod to the constitution segways to this: Holmes and his “defer to the legislature” allies were mostly in the minority for the next few decades – but then came the Depression.
In FDR’s first term, Congress obligingly passed a host of bills meant to alleviate the economic misery gripping the nation, but the legislation trampled all over individual rights the Constitution protected, as well as far exceeding the powers of Congress under Article I. The Court, in a series of decisions, struck down laws such as the National Industrial Recovery Act. Despite the cries that the laws were essential, a majority of the Court refused to bow in deference to Congress and the president. That led to Roosevelt’s infamous “Court packing plan” in late 1936. That threat was enough to swing Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Owen Roberts his way in the crucial 1937 Jones & Laughlin Steel case, where the Court, ignoring all precedents, upheld the National Labor Relations Act. so the upholding of state laws is no different than upholding federal laws and vice versa. so why are there state courts and state constitutions as well. You note the author of the article (if not the book, having not read it, is making no attempt whatsoever to address the fact that the federal government, constitutionally speaking at least, is under different restrictions than state governments. Spare me the appeal to authority. you have 5-4 decisions in the supreme court. If lawyers were omnipotent, every decision would be 9-0. Either you didn't see it or you refuse to. either way, not my problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 11:55:45 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so the upholding of state laws is no different than upholding federal laws and vice versa. so why are there state courts and state constitutions as well. You note the author of the article (if not the book, having not read it, is making no attempt whatsoever to address the fact that the federal government, constitutionally speaking at least, is under different restrictions than state governments. Spare me the appeal to authority. you have 5-4 decisions in the supreme court. If lawyers were omnipotent, every decision would be 9-0. Either you didn't see it or you refuse to. either way, not my problem. The author is making a broad point about judicial philosophy. The same deferential view taken in The Slaughterhouse Cases is the same deferential view adopted after the court-packing plan, and its the same deferential view taken by Roberts in the Obamacare decisions. Courts too often defer to the legislature's authority. Republican gubernatorial candidates explicitly state this as their desired end-state, except when it results in things like the Obamacare decisions. Sometimes the courts refuse to defer, like in Obergefell. Kennedy's been on both sides of this, so has Roberts. But you're so eager to find something to argue with me about, you don't realize this. You pick an irrelevant (I mean, tangential at best) point to tell me I'm using "sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better." You don't even know what my point is. So you've constructed a monumental strawman, ignited it, then tell me I either don't see, or refuse to see your strawman. Fuck your strawman. This isn't an appeal to any sort of authority, its an appeal to your ability to read and comprehend the english language. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 12:01:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Define the words in red. This isn't as black as white as many want it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When you think about it, there is no Constitutional right to be able to get married, period. Things not covered in the Constitution are left to either the individual state or the people. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Define the words in red. This isn't as black as white as many want it. privileges immunities liberty due process of law If you read John Bingham's (author of the 14th) words and statements at the time, the meanings and their context become more clear: Bingham stated in no uncertain terms, that the language he chose would "not impose upon any State of the Union, or any citizen of the Union, any obligation which is not now enjoined upon them by the very letter of the Constitution." Referring to the first Eight Amendments, he also said: "decided, and rightfully, that these amendments, defining and protecting the rights of men and citizens, were only limits on the power of Congress, not on the power of the States." Remember, HE drafted the 14th Amendment. He also said THIS: "The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 12:03:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read John Bingham's (author of the 14th) words and statements at the time, the meanings and their context become more clear: Bingham stated in no uncertain terms, that the language he chose would "not impose upon any State of the Union, or any citizen of the Union, any obligation which is not now enjoined upon them by the very letter of the Constitution." Referring to the first Eight Amendments, he also said: "decided, and rightfully, that these amendments, defining and protecting the rights of men and citizens, were only limits on the power of Congress, not on the power of the States." Remember, HE drafted the 14th Amendment. He also said THIS: "The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article..." Yep. Bingham's a good source. But your judge isn't an originalist. Most aren't. Now you're up shit's creek. ETA: And Bingham's opinion has been useless since the slaughterhouse cases, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 12:09:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The author is making a broad point about judicial philosophy. The same deferential view taken in The Slaughterhouse Cases is the same deferential view adopted after the court-packing plan, and its the same deferential view taken by Roberts in the Obamacare decisions. Courts too often defer to the legislature's authority. Republican gubernatorial candidates explicitly state this as their desired end-state, except when it results in things like the Obamacare decisions. Sometimes the courts refuse to defer, like in Obergefell. Kennedy's been on both sides of this, so has Roberts. But you're so eager to find something to argue with me about, you don't realize this. You pick an irrelevant (I mean, tangential at best) point to tell me I'm using "sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better." You don't even know what my point is. So you've constructed a monumental strawman, ignited it, then tell me I either don't see, or refuse to see your strawman. Fuck your strawman. This isn't an appeal to any sort of authority, its an appeal to your ability to read and comprehend the english language. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so the upholding of state laws is no different than upholding federal laws and vice versa. so why are there state courts and state constitutions as well. You note the author of the article (if not the book, having not read it, is making no attempt whatsoever to address the fact that the federal government, constitutionally speaking at least, is under different restrictions than state governments. Spare me the appeal to authority. you have 5-4 decisions in the supreme court. If lawyers were omnipotent, every decision would be 9-0. Either you didn't see it or you refuse to. either way, not my problem. The author is making a broad point about judicial philosophy. The same deferential view taken in The Slaughterhouse Cases is the same deferential view adopted after the court-packing plan, and its the same deferential view taken by Roberts in the Obamacare decisions. Courts too often defer to the legislature's authority. Republican gubernatorial candidates explicitly state this as their desired end-state, except when it results in things like the Obamacare decisions. Sometimes the courts refuse to defer, like in Obergefell. Kennedy's been on both sides of this, so has Roberts. But you're so eager to find something to argue with me about, you don't realize this. You pick an irrelevant (I mean, tangential at best) point to tell me I'm using "sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better." You don't even know what my point is. So you've constructed a monumental strawman, ignited it, then tell me I either don't see, or refuse to see your strawman. Fuck your strawman. This isn't an appeal to any sort of authority, its an appeal to your ability to read and comprehend the english language. bu SCOTUS philosophy should (although clearly it is no longer true) have two entirely different tests when reviewing a law. For a federal law the question should be, "where does the constitution authorize this authority?" For a state law the question should be, "where does the constitution deny this authority?" Kennedy's libertarian (which is to say liberal) tendencies are well known. As for roberts, I suspect he believes the courts should avoid appearing political to protect some nonsensical belief that people still think the courts above it all. of course the democratic appointees have no such restrictions on their conducts. lawyers and judges are simply partisans at this point. you note the 4 die hard liberals almost never disagree and certainly not on highly political cases. CATO's depressing descent into advocating for judicial tyranny is disappointing, but not surprising considering the libertarian slant that way. either way, you have dinosaurs like alito, thomas and scalia being the last remaining advocates for federalism; they will be eviscerated in due time. the founding fathers would probably be shocked we lasted as long as we did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 1:19:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Bingham's a good source. But your judge isn't an originalist. Most aren't. Now you're up shit's creek. ETA: And Bingham's opinion has been useless since the slaughterhouse cases, unfortunately. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you read John Bingham's (author of the 14th) words and statements at the time, the meanings and their context become more clear: Bingham stated in no uncertain terms, that the language he chose would "not impose upon any State of the Union, or any citizen of the Union, any obligation which is not now enjoined upon them by the very letter of the Constitution." Referring to the first Eight Amendments, he also said: "decided, and rightfully, that these amendments, defining and protecting the rights of men and citizens, were only limits on the power of Congress, not on the power of the States." Remember, HE drafted the 14th Amendment. He also said THIS: "The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article..." Yep. Bingham's a good source. But your judge isn't an originalist. Most aren't. Now you're up shit's creek. ETA: And Bingham's opinion has been useless since the slaughterhouse cases, unfortunately. You are indeed correct. The Slaughter-house decision repudiated the contentions attributed to Bingham that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 1:44:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are indeed correct. The Slaughter-house decision repudiated the contentions attributed to Bingham that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. If that decision went the other way, this country would be unrecognizable. Jim Crow would have been kneecapped before it could really start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 1:47:05 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that decision went the other way, this country would be unrecognizable. Jim Crow would have been kneecapped before it could really start. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are indeed correct. The Slaughter-house decision repudiated the contentions attributed to Bingham that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. If that decision went the other way, this country would be unrecognizable. Jim Crow would have been kneecapped before it could really start. What do you mean by this? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 1:52:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you mean by this? Thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are indeed correct. The Slaughter-house decision repudiated the contentions attributed to Bingham that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. If that decision went the other way, this country would be unrecognizable. Jim Crow would have been kneecapped before it could really start. What do you mean by this? Thanks. Jim Crow laws and their disenfranchisement, segregation, etc. would have been impossible to enforce if the slaughterhouse cases decided that the 14th Amendment incorporated the BOR and the privileges and immunities clause protected Americans’ “right to work in an honest calling … and to be secure in the fruits your toil” as Bingham said. Instead, Jim Crow was around until 1965. Can you imagine what our politics would look like today if post-civil war jim crow laws, the civil rights movement, and the civil rights act never happened because they weren't necessary? I can't. ETA: Shit, Jesse Jackson might have a real job in this alternative reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 1:53:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? Politicians can change their mind with regards to laws that are legislated (within the bounds of the constitution), sure. A judge cannot change their mind about the meaning of law. Law does not change meaning based on popular opinion of the day. Either they are wrong or they are lying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:11:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Politicians can change their mind with regards to laws that are legislated (within the bounds of the constitution), sure. A judge cannot change their mind about the meaning of law. Law does not change meaning based on popular opinion of the day. Either they are wrong or they are lying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? Politicians can change their mind with regards to laws that are legislated (within the bounds of the constitution), sure. A judge cannot change their mind about the meaning of law. Law does not change meaning based on popular opinion of the day. Either they are wrong or they are lying. The hero of those siding with the dissent on this issue, Antonin Scalia, had this to say regarding the 2A: Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said,... 
I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:21:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:24:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:35:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. so anything which established an unaccountable lifelong appointment oligarchy more power is a win for freedom? thats funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:39:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. When you see that the deliverers of you new Freedom are the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor (cheered on and celebrated by Obama)... ...doesn't it at least make you wonder? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:39:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so anything which established an unaccountable lifelong appointment oligarchy more power is a win for freedom? thats funny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. so anything which established an unaccountable lifelong appointment oligarchy more power is a win for freedom? thats funny. We're at the point where government is omnipresent, I don't really give a fuck if SCOTUS is seen as "more powerful" if they consistently fuck the rest of the .gov at all levels and the result is them having less say over what I do. I'll take their power grab over the utter bullshit flowing from the legislative and executive branches MY WHOLE LIFE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:41:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you see that the deliverers of you new Freedom are the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor (cheered on and celebrated by Obama)... ...doesn't it at least make you wonder? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. When you see that the deliverers of you new Freedom are the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor (cheered on and celebrated by Obama)... ...doesn't it at least make you wonder? Makes me wonder no less than when the likes of Bush, Boehner, and McConnel are the deliverers of our shackles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:44:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Makes me wonder no less than when the likes of Bush, Boehner, and McConnel are the deliverers of our shackles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. When you see that the deliverers of you new Freedom are the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor (cheered on and celebrated by Obama)... ...doesn't it at least make you wonder? Makes me wonder no less than when the likes of Bush, Boehner, and McConnel are the deliverers of our shackles. No, seriously. Aren't you at all wary? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:46:26 PM EDT
[#37]
She was wrong in 2009. Good to know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:49:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She was wrong in 2009. Good to know. Would you prefer there were more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, and LESS Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:51:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And deciding whether something falls under the 14A is subjective. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ............ It was amended long ago the 14th A is it. Individuals have rights which no state or majority can interfere with, votes or not. And deciding whether something falls under the 14A is subjective. Incorrect. The moment separate but equal was deemed unconstitutional, gay marriage was deemed constitutional. As was polygamy. The only difference is that, until the supreme court looks in to it, a state can make any ruling it wants on an issue. To put it another way, the court said "It's not gay marriage. It's just marriage." Which is what the constitution requires by law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:52:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We're at the point where government is omnipresent, I don't really give a fuck if SCOTUS is seen as "more powerful" if they consistently fuck the rest of the .gov at all levels and the result is them having less say over what I do. I'll take their power grab over the utter bullshit flowing from the legislative and executive branches MY WHOLE LIFE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Point being, well they aren't always right. That's why I ALWAYS praise rulings that result in removing government from the backs of the individual. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe this? (Not being a smartass, genuinely curious.) Hell yes I actually believe this. Any ruling that rolls government power off of the shoulders of an individual is a win in my book. I have yet to see one that I don't like. Government is freedom's greatest enemy, when courts trim their power everyone wins. ETA: Missed a don't. so anything which established an unaccountable lifelong appointment oligarchy more power is a win for freedom? thats funny. We're at the point where government is omnipresent, I don't really give a fuck if SCOTUS is seen as "more powerful" if they consistently fuck the rest of the .gov at all levels and the result is them having less say over what I do. I'll take their power grab over the utter bullshit flowing from the legislative and executive branches MY WHOLE LIFE. so you embrace tyranny where you agree with the tyrant. whereas you inherently disdain democratic representatives who are accountable. one might state that attitude to be down right sociopathic. bake that cake, citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:52:53 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, seriously. Aren't you at all wary? I'm wary of ALL of them. But I'm glad to see liberty get a win, I don't care who it comes from a win is a win. Every case and every law is like roulette these days, no matter which "side" is writing it it's probably going to be a loss for the us's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:53:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you think about it, there is no Constitutional right to be able to get married, period. Things not covered in the Constitution are left to either the individual state or the people. That's correct. However, a state can not discriminate against others for any reason. The same reason that reading tests aren't required for voting is the reason why people of the same sex can be married. Polygamy is the next to be legalized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:54:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We're at the point where government is omnipresent, I don't really give a fuck if SCOTUS is seen as "more powerful" if they consistently fuck the rest of the .gov at all levels and the result is them having less say over what I do. I'll take their power grab over the utter bullshit flowing from the legislative and executive branches MY WHOLE LIFE. Okay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:55:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would you prefer there were more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, and LESS Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: She was wrong in 2009. Good to know. Would you prefer there were more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, and LESS Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Neither. But please, continue with your pedantic red herring argumentation that makes you feel erudite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:56:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neither. But please, continue with your pedantic red herring argumentation that makes you feel erudite. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She was wrong in 2009. Good to know. Would you prefer there were more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, and LESS Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Neither. But please, continue with your pedantic red herring argumentation that makes you feel erudite. It's a simple question. Do you prefer Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor OVER Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito, or do you prefer Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito OVER Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:57:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so you embrace tyranny where you agree with the tyrant. whereas you inherently disdain democratic representatives who are accountable. one might state that attitude to be down right sociopathic. bake that cake, citizen. I'm down with everything from a dollop less government all the way to anarchy as well, if anyone wants to serve up a boat load of that. Until then I'll be down with whatever gets the fuckers off my back and out of my pocket even if it's in the most personally useless and miniscule way. And I actually do believe when it comes to cutting and/or gutting government the end does justify the means, it sure seems to for everyone taking government in the other direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:58:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neither. But please, continue with your pedantic red herring argumentation that makes you feel erudite. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She was wrong in 2009. Good to know. Would you prefer there were more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, and LESS Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Neither. But please, continue with your pedantic red herring argumentation that makes you feel erudite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 3:00:14 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I actually do believe when it comes to cutting and/or gutting government the end does justify the means... Even if the "means" are unconstitutional and dictatorial? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 3:00:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a simple question. Do you prefer Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor OVER Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito, or do you prefer Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito OVER Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: She was wrong in 2009. Good to know. Would you prefer there were more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, and LESS Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Neither. But please, continue with your pedantic red herring argumentation that makes you feel erudite. It's a simple question. Do you prefer Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor OVER Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito, or do you prefer Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito OVER Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor? You're asking my preference between two things I don't want either of. Would you like to eat shit for dinner or be dick punched by a donkey? The answer is neither. South Park broke it down in an episode you might be able to understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 3:01:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're asking my preference between two things I don't want either of. Would you like to eat shit for dinner or be dick punched by a donkey? The answer is neither. South Park broke it down in an episode you might be able to understand. Bullshit. You're just avoiding the question. I think it's obvious why. |
|
|
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.
