The Illegitimacy of the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

[Anonymous]

Glad someone cited the 9th Amendment. The conservatives who believe that the Framers enumerated every right in immutable print can be pretty obtuse on that subject. The Constitution is an organic document that protects unenumerated rights.

[Anonymous]

Just wait to the decisions related to affirmative action in college admissions come out. That will be a massive trigger event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So where are the GOP bills supporting more money for mental health care?
I have seen it from the Dems, but the GOP vote against all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So people who have mental issues are fine to have guns in your world? Because for most people, more money for mental health services AND background checks to ensure people with issues cannot legally have a gun would be a two-pronged solution that over 75% of the people support, and yet...

[Anonymous]

Don't forget the one-time-only, "this applies to George W. Bush only" Equal Protection decision in Bush v. Gore that stopped the state's votes from being counted as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court which, in turn, led to the installation of Bush as President and put Roberts and Alito on the court.

So, Roberts and Alito are the fruit of that illegitimate decision. Gorsuch was the product of the illegitimate blocking of Obama's appointment. Barrett was jammed through after the people elected Biden. Thomas was legitimately appointed by a popularly elected President, but he is now known to be too corrupt to hold office; not even recusing himself in a case involving his wife's efforts to overthrow the United States government.

If you ignore the fact that most of the country wanted Clinton rather than Trump, Kavanaugh -- even if he is a sexual assaulter just like Trump -- is probably entitled to his seat.

[Anonymous]

I tried to call Roberts’ office, to let him know that the people who pay his salary expect him to show some leadership (especially if they want to avoid outside oversight). I got transferred to a recording that says they have no public comment line. Why is that okay? They are public SERVANTS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget the one-time-only, "this applies to George W. Bush only" Equal Protection decision in Bush v. Gore that stopped the state's votes from being counted as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court which, in turn, led to the installation of Bush as President and put Roberts and Alito on the court.

So, Roberts and Alito are the fruit of that illegitimate decision. Gorsuch was the product of the illegitimate blocking of Obama's appointment. Barrett was jammed through after the people elected Biden. Thomas was legitimately appointed by a popularly elected President, but he is now known to be too corrupt to hold office; not even recusing himself in a case involving his wife's efforts to overthrow the United States government.

If you ignore the fact that most of the country wanted Clinton rather than Trump, Kavanaugh -- even if he is a sexual assaulter just like Trump -- is probably entitled to his seat.

Except 1) he wouldn't have been appointed by Clinton, 2) Kennedy wasn't going to retire until Trump forced him for some reason and 3) there was never a legitimate background investigation even before the alleged rape charges, which were surfaced by right wingers to hide the financial malfeasance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget the one-time-only, "this applies to George W. Bush only" Equal Protection decision in Bush v. Gore that stopped the state's votes from being counted as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court which, in turn, led to the installation of Bush as President and put Roberts and Alito on the court.

So, Roberts and Alito are the fruit of that illegitimate decision. Gorsuch was the product of the illegitimate blocking of Obama's appointment. Barrett was jammed through after the people elected Biden. Thomas was legitimately appointed by a popularly elected President, but he is now known to be too corrupt to hold office; not even recusing himself in a case involving his wife's efforts to overthrow the United States government.

If you ignore the fact that most of the country wanted Clinton rather than Trump, Kavanaugh -- even if he is a sexual assaulter just like Trump -- is probably entitled to his seat.

Except that Kennedy was somehow forced to retire.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Such grand conspiracies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So where are the GOP bills supporting more money for mental health care?
I have seen it from the Dems, but the GOP vote against all the time.

GOP doesn't even want to pay for the mental health care we have now. They'd rather trigger a debt ceiling rather than pay for the mental health care already authorized; let alone pay for more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I tried to call Roberts’ office, to let him know that the people who pay his salary expect him to show some leadership (especially if they want to avoid outside oversight). I got transferred to a recording that says they have no public comment line. Why is that okay? They are public SERVANTS.

Probably because they would get looney tune idiots like the ones protesting illegally in front of the justices' homes to call and leave threats and messages warning them that they have "released the whirlwind and they won't know what will hit them if they follow through on decisions."
Kind of like what Schumer said a couple years ago.

They certainly don't need that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tried to call Roberts’ office, to let him know that the people who pay his salary expect him to show some leadership (especially if they want to avoid outside oversight). I got transferred to a recording that says they have no public comment line. Why is that okay? They are public SERVANTS.

Probably because they would get looney tune idiots like the ones protesting illegally in front of the justices' homes to call and leave threats and messages warning them that they have "released the whirlwind and they won't know what will hit them if they follow through on decisions."
Kind of like what Schumer said a couple years ago.

They certainly don't need that.

That wouldn't have happened if the Justices hadn't prostituted themselves out to unelected far right radical activist groups, and completely undermining and destroying the integrity of their positions.

Actions have consequences. If they don't "need" it then they should stop playing footsy with right wing extremists, because the rest of us don't need that, either.