'Gun rights lawyer gives hope to liberal causes', The WashingtonTimes.com

[The Donkey]

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

A major difference between the floral business and slaughter-houses was that slaughter-houses had severe effects on the health of the surrounding population.

I agree that states have the power to regulate businesses for health reasons, even if it means drastically changing the way business is done.

I agree that some may have an effect on the surrounding population; but there are other ways that the Feds and states can garner the power to regulate that through general welfare clauses and such. Therefore; IMO, theres no need to strip us of other rights.

In the case of the floral business, there might be a question about whether the regulation in question is rationally related to any legitimate public interest.That question might arise under the DP and the EP clauses, and --in my opinion-- should arise under the P & I clause.

IMO, it should only arise under general welfare clauses; that's where the government was given the power. I know we will have fundamental disagreements on the issue of what would be a legitimate public interest but wouldn't it seem that the PoI clause and DP clause are for us? For our rights? To restrict power and not give it? Government powers are outlined elsewhere in the constitution.

I am not annoyed withthe result in Slaughterhouse-- but I am bothered with howthe caseswere decided --and how that decision is applied regarding the P & I clause. I think P & I ought to encompass civil rights.

What a Court ideologically concerned with economic liberties might do withP & I isto bring us back to the Supremes of the 1930s, standing against a President and a Congress to prevent necessary bold actions in the economic sphere.

Politically, I don't trust them: but luckily, I think they don'ttrust themselves either.

The last comment is my problem also; I wish politics didn't have anything to do with the courts as I believe they have no place there. The laws should be interepreted as to their original intent and nothing more in my opinion. There shouldn't be room for political maneuvering. In an ideal world the justices that succumb to that should be impeached. Like FDR's self appointed harem of justices.

I'm not sure that we disagree that much:

I like "general welfare" clauses as a vehicle forslaughter-house type regulation. Iam less comfortable with inherent "police powers"which the Slaughterhousecourt relied on.

I might pick on the "harem" thing a bit: some of FDR's justices are favorites . . . .

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Brass Magnet wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

A major difference between the floral business and slaughter-houses was that slaughter-houses had severe effects on the health of the surrounding population.

I agree that states have the power to regulate businesses for health reasons, even if it means drastically changing the way business is done.

I agree that some may have an effect on the surrounding population; but there are other ways that the Feds and states can garner the power to regulate that through general welfare clauses and such. Therefore; IMO, theres no need to strip us of other rights.

In the case of the floral business, there might be a question about whether the regulation in question is rationally related to any legitimate public interest.That question might arise under the DP and the EP clauses, and --in my opinion-- should arise under the P & I clause.

IMO, it should only arise under general welfare clauses; that's where the government was given the power. I know we will have fundamental disagreements on the issue of what would be a legitimate public interest but wouldn't it seem that the PoI clause and DP clause are for us? For our rights? To restrict power and not give it? Government powers are outlined elsewhere in the constitution.

I am not annoyed withthe result in Slaughterhouse-- but I am bothered with howthe caseswere decided --and how that decision is applied regarding the P & I clause. I think P & I ought to encompass civil rights.

What a Court ideologically concerned with economic liberties might do withP & I isto bring us back to the Supremes of the 1930s, standing against a President and a Congress to prevent necessary bold actions in the economic sphere.

Politically, I don't trust them: but luckily, I think they don'ttrust themselves either.

The last comment is my problem also; I wish politics didn't have anything to do with the courts as I believe they have no place there. The laws should be interepreted as to their original intent and nothing more in my opinion. There shouldn't be room for political maneuvering. In an ideal world the justices that succumb to that should be impeached. Like FDR's self appointed harem of justices.

I'm not sure that we disagree that much:

I like "general welfare" clauses as a vehicle forslaughter-house type regulation. Iam less comfortable with inherent "police powers"which the Slaughterhousecourt relied on.

I might pick on the "harem" thing a bit: some of FDR's justices are favorites . . . .

I can live with that... except for the harem.... definitely a harem....LOL Wasn't Wickard v. Filburn pretty much his fault if I remember correctly? It's been a while since I've studied up on that.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Hard to say that a particular decision is a president's "fault" anymore than one can blame it on the Great Depression or WWII.

But these things, like presidenciesand events,have a tendency over the expanse of time to self-correct, at least to someextent: witness U.S. v. Lopez, overturning the Gun Free School Zone Actas an abuse ofthe Commerce Clause.

Wickard is still wicked, no doubt about that: those folks who contemplate manufacturing and selling machine guns in Montana for use "only in the state" may wish to give Wickard a read before giving up their day jobs . . . .

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Well, he did pack the court to get what he wanted. Is it any worse than ignoring the court and sending the indians west? Probably not, but an abuse of power none the less.

The Donkey wrote:

Wickard is still wicked, no doubt about that: those folks who contemplate manufacturing and selling machine guns in Montana for use "only in the state" may wish to give Wickard a read before giving up their day jobs . . . .

Isn't Wickard one of the reasons they are contemplating it? My understanding is they are seeking to get it overturned by passing the so called "states rights" bills in various states.

Maybe they believe Lopez opened the door enough to get a wedge in there.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

Maybe they believe Lopez opened the door enough to get a wedge in there.

They might believe it, but I have my doubts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

More likely, they are pander bears.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Brass Magnet wrote:

Maybe they believe Lopez opened the door enough to get a wedge in there.

They might believe it, but I have my doubts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

More likely, they are pander bears.

After reading your link, I think you may probably be right about that approach. Of course, there's always the other approach that's made mention of in the bills. The fact that the U.S. violated it's compact of statehood with Montana, for instance.

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post


SHOCK REPORT: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts May Step Down?

TOP COURT SOURCE TELLS DRUDGE: 'THIS IS NOT HAPPENING... NEWS TO ME'... DEVELOPING...

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ef-justice-john-roberts-considering-step-down

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is seriously considering stepping down from the nation’s highest court for personal reasons, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

Roberts, known for his conservative judicial philosophy, has served on the Supreme Court since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of former Chief William Rehnquist.

RadarOnline.com has been told that Roberts, 55, could announce his decision at any time.

The decision paves the way for President Barack Obama to make his second appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court following his first, Sonia Sotomayor.

How's that for a nightmare?

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

SHOCK REPORT: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts May Step Down?

TOP COURT SOURCE TELLS DRUDGE: 'THIS IS NOT HAPPENING... NEWS TO ME'... DEVELOPING...

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ef-justice-john-roberts-considering-step-down

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is seriously considering stepping down from the nation’s highest court for personal reasons, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

Roberts, known for his conservative judicial philosophy, has served on the Supreme Court since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of former Chief William Rehnquist.

RadarOnline.com has been told that Roberts, 55, could announce his decision at any time.

The decision paves the way for President Barack Obama to make his second appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court following his first, Sonia Sotomayor.

How's that for a nightmare?

Doubt he will neglect to render decisions on any cases he's heard so far. But yes, probably a nightmare after incorporation.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

SHOCK REPORT: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts May Step Down?

TOP COURT SOURCE TELLS DRUDGE: 'THIS IS NOT HAPPENING... NEWS TO ME'... DEVELOPING...

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ef-justice-john-roberts-considering-step-down

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is seriously considering stepping down from the nation’s highest court for personal reasons, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

Roberts, known for his conservative judicial philosophy, has served on the Supreme Court since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of former Chief William Rehnquist.

RadarOnline.com has been told that Roberts, 55, could announce his decision at any time.

The decision paves the way for President Barack Obama to make his second appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court following his first, Sonia Sotomayor.

How's that for a nightmare?

"Despite considering resigning from the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts will stay on the bench, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned. . . ."

How fast can "radar" backpedal?