The Illegitimacy of the Supreme Court

[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 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.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

What word in the phrase “shall not be infringed” are you unable to grasp. The United States exists today because the colonists had weapons sufficient to defeat the mighty British Army.

This has to be the dumbest post of the day, dummy.

I haven’t read further and may not remember US history well enough, but why is it stupid?
Thanks and hope you’re having a great night!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why you would ever risk being Democrat. Republicans have the passion, the money, the tactics and the guns. Democrats have people if they decide to postpone their latte that morning to go vote.

Republicans are the head quarterback, Democrats wrote for the literary journal

Haha. Republicans are meth addled racist yokels being jerked around by charlatan preachers and billionaires who look down on their minions.

Ooh, now tell us about crack-addled urbanites being jerked around by charlatan BLM scam artists who pretend to have their best interests at heart but are really just using their rubes while they laugh their way to the bank. We’ll wait, while you spin up some faux outrage and call me a “racist” but studiously ignore your gross statement.
DP

crack isn't a thing anymore, that was the 1990's
BLM isn't a thing the way you cast that it is

Yes, there are problems in cities, but guess what....per capital drug use and per capita murders are generally far greater in red rural areas than in cities. So stop casting aspersions.

And what’s the average income level for cities vs. rural areas? It does seem as though socioeconomic status is the best predictor of “success” and perhaps the race baiting (sorry - this is afield but seems relevant to this) is a ploy to keep the 99% inoculated from a class war. Or, idk, it’s the middle of the night, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Remember.... you are responding to people who believe the Constitution is malleable and fluid and can be interpreted as they see fit.
Likewise, they believe SCOTUS should rule based on what is popular today and not based on law.

It’s a constitution, not a code of laws. Of course it isn’t calcified.

Changes to the Constitution are made through Amendments. It has been done many times.
And, yes, the Constitution is law. And, it is the basis on which more specific laws in a county, state, or country are made.

the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United,frame%20and%20constraints%20of%20government.

The 2nd Amendment was radically reinterpreted by Scalia in Heller. Of course it’s “malleable” - we watched Scalia do it himself.

It was not radically reinterpreted. It is Democrat appointees who seek to radically reinterpret the 2nd amendment.

There was no federal right to bear arms until Heller. It was a made up “right.”

From 1995:

But the judges who interpret the nation's laws say the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms. In fact, no federal court has ever ruled that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own a gun.

In few areas of law is there such a vast gulf between what people think the Constitution protects and what the nation's judges say it protects. The difference between belief and reality infects the country's perennial gun control debates and exacerbates tensions after incidents like the 1993 shootout near Waco, Tex., and the Oklahoma City bombing last month, which put new attention on citizen paramilitary groups.

The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour." Burger has said often that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, and he has attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

So no citizens owned guns before Heller?

[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.

They don’t care if they die. Look at the comments about Neely. Unfortunately, I think they’re evil.

[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 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.

Cite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Remember.... you are responding to people who believe the Constitution is malleable and fluid and can be interpreted as they see fit.
Likewise, they believe SCOTUS should rule based on what is popular today and not based on law.

It’s a constitution, not a code of laws. Of course it isn’t calcified.

Changes to the Constitution are made through Amendments. It has been done many times.
And, yes, the Constitution is law. And, it is the basis on which more specific laws in a county, state, or country are made.

the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United,frame%20and%20constraints%20of%20government.

The 2nd Amendment was radically reinterpreted by Scalia in Heller. Of course it’s “malleable” - we watched Scalia do it himself.

It was not radically reinterpreted. It is Democrat appointees who seek to radically reinterpret the 2nd amendment.

There was no federal right to bear arms until Heller. It was a made up “right.”

From 1995:

But the judges who interpret the nation's laws say the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms. In fact, no federal court has ever ruled that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own a gun.

In few areas of law is there such a vast gulf between what people think the Constitution protects and what the nation's judges say it protects. The difference between belief and reality infects the country's perennial gun control debates and exacerbates tensions after incidents like the 1993 shootout near Waco, Tex., and the Oklahoma City bombing last month, which put new attention on citizen paramilitary groups.

The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour." Burger has said often that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, and he has attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

So no citizens owned guns before Heller?

It wasn't unfettered.

[Anonymous]

Really, there was a time in the not too distant past when anyone could order a gun through the Sears’s catalog. So mail order purchases no background checks, no questions anyone could buy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really, there was a time in the not too distant past when anyone could order a gun through the Sears’s catalog. So mail order purchases no background checks, no questions anyone could buy.

Yes, sold in the catalog until 1962.

[Anonymous]

We have Heller because of the 14th amendment. It ensured that states could not override rights protected by the US constitution. There were challenges in many other areas such as education that kept the Supreme Court busy. It was only in the past few decades that states began to usurp individuals second amendment rights, so it took awhile for the Supreme Court to have a chance to rule.

They have done so correctly, but unfortunately they will need to do so again and again because states such as New York will continue to try to defy the law of the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

What word in the phrase “shall not be infringed” are you unable to grasp. The United States exists today because the colonists had weapons sufficient to defeat the mighty British Army.

This has to be the dumbest post of the day, dummy.

I haven’t read further and may not remember US history well enough, but why is it stupid?
Thanks and hope you’re having a great night!

We owe our independence to the French Army and Navy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really, there was a time in the not too distant past when anyone could order a gun through the Sears’s catalog. So mail order purchases no background checks, no questions anyone could buy.

AR-15?

[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 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.

Cite?

DP but this is correct. After all, why do you think the Framers said "well regulated militia?" And why do you think the same authors of the 2nd Amendment then went on to pass the Militia Act within 6 months of ratifying 2A, which further defined exactly what they were talking about? And for those who stupidly invented mythology about "to protect us against tyrannical government" read a bit about what else happened within a few months of passage of 2A - some citizens took up arms against what they thought was tyrannical about the newly founded American government, the Whiskey tax. And again, those exact same Founding Fathers authorized George Washington to take said militia to put down the armed insurrection. That provides vastly more true and accurate historical context and insight into what the Founders had in mind than any of the bogus NRA talking points ever will.

[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 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.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

If the framers could have known the state of gun violence in the US today, they never would have included the 2nd amendment as it is written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, there was a time in the not too distant past when anyone could order a gun through the Sears’s catalog. So mail order purchases no background checks, no questions anyone could buy.

AR-15?

You could buy an M1 Carbine. A 15 shot semiautomatic rifle. The AR-15 of its day from the Sears catalog.

Access to guns is not the issue. The fact that mentally deficient people are walking the streets instead of being properly cared for in institutions that is the problem.