WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Current Topics
Trump 2.0
by jgw - 03/14/25 07:52 PM
2024 Election Forum
by rporter314 - 03/11/25 11:16 PM
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 6 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Agnostic Politico, Jems, robertjohn, BlackCat13th, ruggedman
6,305 Registered Users
Popular Topics(Views)
10,260,923 my own book page
5,051,281 We shall overcome
4,250,738 Campaign 2016
3,856,333 Trump's Trumpet
3,055,512 3 word story game
Top Posters
pdx rick 47,430
Scoutgal 27,583
Phil Hoskins 21,134
Greger 19,831
Towanda 19,391
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Irked 1
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,540
Members6,305
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
Buzzard's Roost, Troyota
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,520
Likes: 2
BC Offline
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,520
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Quote
Senator, are ya saying the Supreme Court only matters if it makes the "right" decision...the one you want? Is there no judicious judging allowed of the judges on our constitutionally established high court?

The Supreme Court interprets our laws it does not make them.

Well...yah... I believe I said "make...decisions". Does interpretation only qualify as "making" law if you disagree with the interpretation. Interpretation does imply more than one possible outcome...more than one possible decision...doesn't it?


- - - Bob

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129
Likes: 257
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129
Likes: 257
The Supreme Court doesn't "interpret our laws". (The laws are generally written in English. smile )

The Supreme Court does judge the constitutionality of our laws. So the only thing they are interpreting is the US Constitution.

Too bad they decided not to take this case. Its just going to rattle around in the lower courts in various incarnations until the SC says either "The 2nd amendment means anybody can have any weapon." or "The 2nd amendment applies only to the state National Guard units."

Either way will lead immediately to another amendment that DOES specify precisely the rights of certain classes of individuals to own certain types of weapons without the interferance of government and law. Then the classes of individuals and weapons that could be regulated by the government will be clear.

I would support an amendment that lets everybody without a criminal record own pepper spray weapons, air guns that can only shoot rubber bullets or beanbags, and non-lethal electric stun guns, all without any licensing or registration. Sling shots and bows would be classified as lethal weapons (along with everything else that shoots real bullets or shot, explodes, poisons, irradiates, etc. which could be regulated by state or district laws.

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
Quote
The Supreme Court does judge the constitutionality of our laws. So the only thing they are interpreting is the US Constitution.
Had the Supreme Court decided to take the D.C. gun ban case and interpreted the Second Amendment as it was written and understood by the authors of the Bill of Rights they would rule the D.C. gun ban un-Constitutional. A group of men who had just won their freedom are not going to write a law that makes illegal, the right to keep and bear arms, the tools that had won them their freedom.


The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134

Quote
The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years.

The court's decision could have broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country and will raise a hotly contested political issue just in time for the 2008 elections.

Washington Post


Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
It was noted just today that the Supreme Court may issue an opinion in time to affect the 2008 election. Coincidence? I think not. As if 2000 were not bad enough.... They want to politicize the Court yet again, just in time to stir up the conservative base. But it is a non-partisan institution, right? (or is that far right?)


A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
On the merits, I think D.C. has a losing position - but not because I believe that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right (a position that I have changed from as a result of further study). Rather, I think, D.C. would lose because it is a federal entity, and not a State or State subdivision. The Second Amendment is only a restriction on the federal government, and not the States. That, of course, is why this particular forum was chosen. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's "reworking" of the "question presented" - including some "presumptive" language - has tipped the hand of the conservative Justices. They think they know they have the votes, given Justice Kennedy's position in United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995). I think they may be surprised.


A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Here is a good link for documents in the case: D.C. v. Heller - SCOTUSWiki
And here's some more info/analysis: Court agrees to rule on gun case - SCOTUS Blog

Last edited by NW Ponderer; 11/21/07 12:12 AM. Reason: Add Link

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,177
Likes: 254
It's the Despair Quotient!
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
It's the Despair Quotient!
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,177
Likes: 254
Personally I believe that the Supremes are in a position to nail the lid shut on the Second Amendment coffin so that when things get bad enough for Americans to finally get "mad as hell", they won't be able to do anything except whine about it.

The ruling will come down against the Second Amendment's constitutionality, and there will no longer be any more obstacles against the implementation of the NAU and eventually the OWG.

And of course the Joe Horn case will be liberally sprinkled throughout by the media as a scare tactic.

JeffH in Occupied TX


"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
It was noted just today that the Supreme Court may issue an opinion in time to affect the 2008 election. Coincidence? I think not. As if 2000 were not bad enough.... They want to politicize the Court yet again, just in time to stir up the conservative base. But it is a non-partisan institution, right? (or is that far right?)

Actually, the "new left modern liberal" sees the Supreme Court as an ally when it is circumventing the will of the people in favor of 'progressive' issues and an enemy if it allows the Constitution -- especially the spirit of the Constitution -- to overly influence a decision antithetical to the NLML position (i.e. when they don't 'own' the court).

The modern faux conservative movement sees the Supreme Court as ally when it ignores the Constitution -- especially the spirit of the Constitution -- and bows to the will of the "Leader" and the State, and an enemy when it adheres to Constititional principle and fails to grant the leader what he wants (i.e. when they don't 'own' the court).

Being less biased, I see the Supreme Court as a pack of hired political jackels selected from the legal industry who will act as a bulwark in protecting the interests of the establishment while sticking a well-licked finger in the air to see which way the public flatulence is blowing.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
OMG, we agree again Issodhos


Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5