Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

M1911 said:
She is out of a job.

I met Angus once. He's an arrogant ass.
Click to expand...

[rofl] I did not know until now. I am smiling as I type this because I could not stand Cheryl Jacques. I've never met Angus but I've seen him in interviews, read quotes from him, etc.. The impression I got was he was as arrogant as you can get. His old boss Jacques was much the same. With all the fleas Scott Brown has, he has done a few things well. Beating McQuilken in that special election to fill Jacques seat was fantastic. If McQuilken won, he'd still be in there today and would be for a very long time.
 
Cheryl Jacques (rhymes with Fakes) is leading a new civil-rights movement – the right of all hacks everywhere to never lose their jobs, as opposed to work, which is something Cheryl has spent her first 52 years of life dodging.

The extinguished ex-senator is planning to sue Gov. Deval Patrick for, get this, not reappointing her to her hack $104,000-a-year job as an administrative judge at the Department of Industrial Accidents.

Cheryl Jacques v. Deval Patrick – isn’t there some way they can both lose?

....

Meanwhile, Cheryl Jacques bids fair to become the Joan of Arc of the hackerama.

The only difference is, Joan of Arc didn’t take up arms against the English because she was passed over for a parking space.

I’m not kidding – that’s one of the counts Cheryl cited in filing her original MCAD complaint. That, and the fact that she, a “self-identifying white female,” was making less than another Deval appointee, who is black.

I guess some hacks are more equal than others.

Besides, it could be worse. Cheryl ran for Congress once, in 2001, and once the voters got to know her, they came to the same conclusion as Deval. They said, “You’re fired.”

Better she sues Deval than the voters of what was then the Ninth Congressional District. But she’s probably not ruling that out either. Ask any hack – anything beats working for a living.
Click to expand...

Full text here: http://howiecarrshow.com/hacks-on-the-attack-over-job-flaps/
 
derek said:
+1

They could call all of you Nazi baby killer's in MA and still get re-elected. Oh wait they already do
Click to expand...

They could free a murderer from jail that kicked around a decapitated head like a football and get voted in. See Suzanne Bump...
 
Hoover said:
... He's also a member of the jewish temple in Wellesley, the same one as the Dr. shot at Beth isreal hospital. At the temple, McQuilken is a vocal member of the temples gun control group.
Click to expand...

Wait, a temple has a gun control group? First, what does that even mean? Sscond, whaf happened to "Never again!"?
 
Wait, a temple has a gun control group? First, what does that even mean? Sscond, whaf happened to "Never again!"?
Click to expand...
I know a Rabbi whose contract at one point stated "The Rabbi agrees not to carry a gun in the temple". But, I know another Jew who was quietly encourage to carry to services.

They could free a murderer from jail that kicked around a decapitated head like a football and get voted in. See Suzanne Bump...
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the progenitor of "principal vs. primary residence".

And, it would be more "like a soccer ball" than "like a football". Think about the dynamics of motion for a moment.
 
Between Holden, Hightower, and this, you would think SCOTUS might perk up and realize there's a whole lotta bad shit happening in Makistan, and try to do something about it. I guess the trick is getting their attention.
 
Last edited:
hv55maxx said:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Click to expand...

I wasn't going there. I was suggesting that possibly there was a belief at SCOTUS that "intermediate scrutiny" would be "enough". I think that question has been answered.
 
terraformer said:
I wasn't going there. I was suggesting that possibly there was a belief at SCOTUS that "intermediate scrutiny" would be "enough". I think that question has been answered.
Click to expand...

[raises hand] I don't understand the question.

I thought this was already at the "intermediate scrutiny" stage.
 
There are three levels of judicial review, rational basis (the least strict), intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny (the most strict). To hold up under intermediate scrutiny, it must be shown that the law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. To hold up under strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the law is a narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.

When it comes to the free exercise of a fundamental right like the right to bear arms, the courts should be using strict scrutiny, but so far they've been using intermediate scrutiny, which is what leads to bogus decisions like the one we got on this case. At least that's my understanding.
 
All judicial review should use strict scrutiny at the least, as "governmental interest" is the reason our Constitution exists. To limit what they can do regardless of that interest. The whole system is bogus. They are working to uphold rights infringements based on governmental interest when they should be doing literally the exact opposite. They should be upholding rights in spite of governmental interest.

It is so frustrating.
 
mlaboss said:
... To hold up under intermediate scrutiny, it must be shown that the law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. ...
Click to expand...

I'd say it does not. This actually GOES AGAINST furthering the government interest...
 
mlaboss said:
There are three levels of judicial review, rational basis (the least strict), intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny (the most strict). To hold up under intermediate scrutiny, it must be shown that the law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. To hold up under strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the law is a narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.

When it comes to the free exercise of a fundamental right like the right to bear arms, the courts should be using strict scrutiny, but so far they've been using intermediate scrutiny, which is what leads to bogus decisions like the one we got on this case. At least that's my understanding.
Click to expand...
Your analysis is valid per the current thinking of the court, but let me offer this correction from the Constitution to both you and the courts:

BULLSHIT!

They have fabricated these levels of review from whole-cloth to create an excuse to empower government beyond explicit and stringent limitations when their depends filled up when confronted prospect of people actually being free. How inconvenient, difficult and expensive it is to govern free people while shackled by due process? As it should be!

There is no standard by which fundamental rights can be infringed based on government merely claiming, not even having to show a measured result in public safety policy.

There is no standard by which fundamental rights of an entire class of people can be weighed - even with demonstrable public policy concerns.

The Constitution offers one and only one means of abridging fundamental rights:
DUE PROCESS. with the burden of proof on the state and a high one at that.

Even then, it offers this only as recourse toward an individual, NOT an entire class of citizens.

The government is obliged to tip-toe just as delicately over our rights as they do over murderers, rapists and terrorists such as those on trial right now in Boston.
 
Last edited:
If I am wrong, than how could the court ever release a career criminal accused and convicted of a horrendous crime on an evidenciary technicality?

The answer is that they must to protect the system and liberty itself - even when that thug is easily demonstrated to a "reasonable person" as a threat to public safety.
 
cekim said:
If I am wrong, than how could the court ever release a career criminal accused and convicted of a horrendous crime on an evidenciary technicality?

The answer is that they must to protect the system and liberty itself - even when that thug is easily demonstrated to a "reasonable person" as a threat to public safety.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong, exactly, but think about it this way: strict and intermediate scrutiny were invented by courts to resolve questions like "Does a law restricting a direct threat of violence automatically become unconstitutional under the first amendment? How about Slander/Libel?"

The judiciary is charged with figuring out how to apply the constitution to questions that people can't reasonably anticipate, and they need a way to figure out if a right was impinged on (the police broke into the mans house and read his mail, but their case against him doesn't rest on any evidence they got that way, because once they knew he did it, they went back and got evidence by following procedure) for example. They don't always get it right, but they keep notes and try to explain how they come up with those judgement calls, and sometimes they'll revisit them.

It's certainly not perfect, but if they didn't make their standards clear, it wouldn't be better.
 
lupis42 said:
I'm not saying you're wrong, exactly, but think about it this way: strict and intermediate scrutiny were invented by courts to resolve questions like "Does a law restricting a direct threat of violence automatically become unconstitutional under the first amendment? How about Slander/Libel?"

The judiciary is charged with figuring out how to apply the constitution to questions that people can't reasonably anticipate, and they need a way to figure out if a right was impinged on (the police broke into the mans house and read his mail, but their case against him doesn't rest on any evidence they got that way, because once they knew he did it, they went back and got evidence by following procedure) for example. They don't always get it right, but they keep notes and try to explain how they come up with those judgement calls, and sometimes they'll revisit them.

It's certainly not perfect, but if they didn't make their standards clear, it wouldn't be better.
Click to expand...

Until the 1930s, there was no such as intermediate scrutiny or irrational basis. They were invented to satisfy FDR (switch in time to save nine) to allow the courts to give the thumbs up to things that wouldn't have otherwise been allowed as law. This was predominately applied at first to commercial regulations, like banking, securities, minimum wage law, etc. There was a reason they didn't ban drugs, guns (actually the first gun ban wasn't until the 1970s), etc until this time. Because prior, outright bans would have been considered unconstitutional because the standard for whether or not a law was constitutional was much higher than it is today. Basically, whats rational about banning something (say cocaine) when it had other uses? As is today, cocaine was regulated. But lets take pot, it wasn't banned until the 1940s. Prior to then the idea that you can ban a naturally occurring weed was rather absurd.
 
terraformer said:
Until the 1930s, there was no such as intermediate scrutiny or irrational basis. They were invented to satisfy FDR (switch in time to save nine) to allow the courts to give the thumbs up to things that wouldn't have otherwise been allowed as law. This was predominately applied at first to commercial regulations, like banking, securities, minimum wage law, etc. There was a reason they didn't ban drugs, guns (actually the first gun ban wasn't until the 1970s), etc until this time. Because prior, outright bans would have been considered unconstitutional because the standard for whether or not a law was constitutional was much higher than it is today. Basically, whats rational about banning something (say cocaine) when it had other uses? As is today, cocaine was regulated. But lets take pot, it wasn't banned until the 1940s. Prior to then the idea that you can ban a naturally occurring weed was rather absurd.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It was an excuse to violate the constitution not a clarification of standards.

Slander and libel are often used as explanations for how we restrict liberty but the government isn't restricting your expression with those. It is saying that someone damaged by your actions has a right to push the cost of that damage back on to you.

Moreover it happens AFTER you express yourself not prior.

It is a false analogy both as a justification for 2A restrictions and scrutiny.
 
mlaboss said:
When it comes to the free exercise of a fundamental right like the right to bear arms, the courts should be using strict scrutiny, but so far they've been using intermediate scrutiny, which is what leads to bogus decisions like the one we got on this case. At least that's my understanding.
Click to expand...
The MA SJC just declared that the standard in MA is "rational basis".
 

Similar threads

Yesterday Was The 10 Year Anniversary Of The Bundy Family Cattle Ranch Standoff Against The BLM
Replies
4
Views
254
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
District Judge Grants Summary Judgment Against California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
Replies
0
Views
154
Reptile
Reptile
For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
388
Uzi2
U
‘Unconstitutional’: DOJ Announces Red Flag Center For Gun-Grab Operation Against Americans
Replies
16
Views
625
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
Florida law allowing residents to stand their ground against ‘crack bears’ is one step closer to reality
Replies
10
Views
318
Sf Becket
Sf Becket
Back
Top Bottom