Scalia Dead - Supreme Court No longer has a Gun Friendly Majority

[WalkingWolf]

I have no need to justify my gun bona fides to you.
I wouldn't do that anymore than you would. Get real.

Just for clarification, I have. I have posted both images of my guns, and made numerous posts related to OC, shooting, and other RKBA. With respect to moderators this issue will die because it is off topic. But it is relevant because you made a claim that I believe to be untrue based on your reputation. Newbies, and lurkers should be aware of your agenda when reading your posts.

 

[WalkingWolf]

quote: The Judiciary Act of 1869 (16 Stat. 44), also called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, is a United States statute that stipulated that the makeup of the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices, any six of whom would constitute a quorum. unquote note: while stating the cite needs validation, you are free to explore exactly what the Judiciary Act states on your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

since we can't get the congress to agree on the time of day or the running of the country...i doubt there would be much consensus on debating and creating an amendment to this act to lower the number of associate justices.

ipse

I doubt it too, but is possible if they pulled their head out of the sand.

 

[solus]

I doubt it too, but is possible if they pulled their head out of the sand.

kinda like digging out the sink hole next to the golf course?? http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2016/02/18/drone-top-of-rock-sinkhole/80560176/



not being disrespectful to our elected reps and sentators mind you...

ipse

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

That battle has been fought, most recently by FDR in 1937 when he tried to pack the Court. FORWARD Progressives, into the past again.

A devious tyrannical move I have always been very fascinated by. It seems Judge Roberts actually flip flopped and supported FDR and helped usher in heavily regulating businesses in order to appease him and keep the count at 9 robes.
It's fascinating and horrifying.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

A devious tyrannical move I have always been very fascinated by. It seems Judge Roberts actually flip flopped and supported FDR and helped usher in heavily regulating businesses in order to appease him and keep the count at 9 robes.
It's fascinating and horrifying.

Switch in time to save nine.

 

[marshaul]

Stare decisis, nothing more. Scalia was appointed to the court 40 some odd years after a very similar SCOTUS decision.



Not saying that these two decisions were correct, in fact I categorically disagree with them. Stare decisis is what rules the court, not the constitution.

The decision is rife with apologia beyond a simple appeal to stare decisis. And precedent didn't stop Thomas from issuing a sensible dissent.

 

[OC for ME]

Although they do not carry legal weight and do not represent the Court’s ruling, dissenting opinions are considered a crucial part of the Court’s work.

Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes remarked that a dissent is “an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the Court to have been betrayed.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo said a dissenting Justice speaks “to the future,” with “his voice pitched to a key that will carry throughout the years.”

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/07/reading-a-dissent-from-the-supreme-court-bench/

The dissent in Terry v. Ohio.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1#writing-USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZD

Interesting read.

 

[nonameisgood]

I never did really get how Terry happened. It seems on its face to be an infringement of rights. I like the dissent. I had not seen it til now, thank you for posting the link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

I never did really get how Terry happened. ...

Refer to the term "immaculate conception" for a explanation.

 

[Grapeshot]

Refer to the term "immaculate conception" for a explanation.

Had many conversations with the Jesuits at Creighton University in my youth. Their translation of the word we see as virgin was "young woman" - such did not carry with it the defining characteristic of not having been with a man.

It is not my intention to open a religious debate - acting only as a messenger/bearer of information remembered.

 

[nonameisgood]

Had many conversations with the Jesuits at Creighton University in my youth. Their translation of the word we see as virgin was "young woman" - such did not carry with it the defining characteristic of not having been with a man.

It is not my intention to open a religious debate - acting only as a messenger/bearer of information remembered.

The translation I recall hearing was "unwed". I'm sure there is nuance lost to translation into the imprecise English we speak.

In the case of Terry, it's less "from whole cloth" and more "from thin air."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MAC702]

Had many conversations with the Jesuits at Creighton University in my youth. Their translation of the word we see as virgin was "young woman" - such did not carry with it the defining characteristic of not having been with a man.

It is not my intention to open a religious debate - acting only as a messenger/bearer of information remembered.

Which would be inconsistent with the many other uses of the same word throughout the Bible. But, like you say, not for debate here. People will interpret as they want.

 

[Grapeshot]

Which would be inconsistent with the many other uses of the same word throughout the Bible. But, like you say, not for debate here. People will interpret as they want.

Consistancy often depends on going back to the original version/language, not a translation thereof.

Just as Scalia's words might be changed/distorted if translated into Russian, to Chinese, to Lakota Sioux, and again to English - forget a political motivation in the versions.

Ancient stories were passed on verbally, long before they were written.

Remember the game "Pass It On'? Consider that when making determinations on 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] hand reports.
http://www.kidsofintegrity.com/lessons/attentiveness/hands-options/pass-it-game

 

[MAC702]

Consistancy often depends on going back to the original version/language, not a translation thereof.

Just as Scalia's words might be changed/distorted if translated into Russian, to Chinese, to Lakota Sioux, and again to English - forget a political motivation in the versions.

Ancient stories were passed on verbally, long before they were written.

Remember the game "Pass It On'? Consider that when making determinations on 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] hand reports.
http://www.kidsofintegrity.com/lessons/attentiveness/hands-options/pass-it-game

And yet there are faithful translations made by experts that know all that, and it's not really all that hard for a layman to understand the differences and see where they apply and when not. I'm not debating the Bible here, though it's odd you wanted to make a point first, and then say the subject isn't for debate.

 

[nonameisgood]

Reading the title of this thread made me wonder: Gun-friendly majority? If a Justice is true to the Constitution and the Amendments thereof, whether that Justice is pro or anti anything should be irrelevant. I guess a personal preference works its way into rulings. But the Justices should be differentiating personal likes and dislikes from their work, just as most of us have to every day. Note that I said "should".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MAC702]

Reading the title of this thread made me wonder: Gun-friendly majority? If a Justice is true to the Constitution and the Amendments thereof, whether that Justice is pro or anti anything should be irrelevant. I guess a personal preference works its way into rulings. But the Justices should be differentiating personal likes and dislikes from their work, just as most of us have to every day. Note that I said "should".

Judges used to take their impartiality extremely seriously. It was considered an honorable thing that one could have an opinion, but render themselves impartial and side against their own opinion. Congress likewise used to specially look at a judge's impartiality on record, instead of finding ones that sided with whatever their desires were at the time. There was a time they would never consider a judge who once worked for the President, much less at the time she was nominated (Kagan). All that is gone. Congress is purposely allowing the selection of judges that legislate from the bench. Sotomayor was well known for it, and admitted to it.

Journalism used to have the same high standard. It used to be a special kind of journalist that editorialized, and it was given its own section in the paper. Now, it's just normal. The term yellow journalism used to be an insult. Now the term is largely unused because it's the only kind of journalism.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Judges used to take their impartiality extremely seriously. It was considered an honorable thing that one could have an opinion, but render themselves impartial and side against their own opinion. Congress likewise used to specially look at a judge's impartiality on record, instead of finding ones that sided with whatever their desires were at the time. There was a time they would never consider a judge who was once worked for the President, much less at the time she was nominated (Kagan). All that is gone. Congress is purposely allowing the selection of judges that legislate from the bench. Sotomayor was well known for it, and admitted to it.

+1

For some time I've wondered what people expect to happen. I mean, really? Create a power center, give a group of people a monopoly on force, and then not expect ambitious people, greedy people, and power-hungry people not to flock to the flame?

Sometimes I just want to grab the complainers by the throat and ask, "What did you think was gonna happen!?!?"

One of my favorites is the person who says in so many words, "I didn't vote for that!" Isn't that such a delicious evasion? "I voted for a politician knowing full well that every politician since the beginning of time has broken his promises." Then, when the politician does break his promise, complain you didn't vote for that, or blame him. Isn't that so easy?

Sometimes I just want to demand, "Let me get this straight. You actually voted to inflict that politician on your fellow human beings? And, now you're disclaiming responsibility? What in the nine he!!s did you think was going to happen!?!"

 

[georg jetson]

+1

For some time I've wondered what people expect to happen. I mean, really? Create a power center, give a group of people a monopoly on force, and then not expect ambitious people, greedy people, and power-hungry people not to flock to the flame?

Sometimes I just want to grab the complainers by the throat and ask, "What did you think was gonna happen!?!?"

One of my favorites is the person who says in so many words, "I didn't vote for that!" Isn't that such a delicious evasion? "I voted for a politician knowing full well that every politician since the beginning of time has broken his promises." Then, when the politician does break his promise, complain you didn't vote for that, or blame him. Isn't that so easy?

Sometimes I just want to demand, "Let me get this straight. You actually voted to inflict that politician on your fellow human beings? And, now you're disclaiming responsibility? What in the nine he!!s did you think was going to happen!?!"

+1
Such a simple concept. But the sheep need herders.

 

[Grapeshot]

+1
Such a simple concept. But the sheep need herders.

Even with herders they are subject to being sheared - it is a cold, cruel world out there. Bleached bones in the field, means somebody ate mutton.

 

[utbagpiper]

For some time I've wondered what people expect to happen. I mean, really? Create a power center, give a group of people a monopoly on force, and then not expect ambitious people, greedy people, and power-hungry people not to flock to the flame?

It is amazing to me that with the obvious failings of every government in the history of the world that we can't find a dozen contemporary examples of non-government societies to which the freedom loving might flock. I wonder why that is?

Could it be that lack of government quickly leads to far worse results than having an imperfect, but decently structured government?

Our own founding fathers used King George's refusal to provide government as one of the indictments against him:

"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

"He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."
​

Churchill is often credited with saying that democracy was the worst form of government except for all those other forms...

Let me borrow shameless by saying that: Anarchy is the best form of society until you actually put it into practice.

There is a reason (or three) there are not anarchist societies to which you might flee so as to free yourself from the evils of government.

Charles