xtry51
NES Member
Please explain how allowing SCOTUS to strike down laws (not constitutional amendments) could ever do what you are saying. You are talking nonsense.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Please explain how allowing SCOTUS to strike down laws (not constitutional amendments) could ever do what you are saying. You are talking nonsense.
Abortion was a right for a long time then it wasn't, you'd have to be delusional to think it couldn't go back. All it takes is a SCOTUS decision that the previous decision was wrong.
Different SCOTUS could easily have a different interpretation of the second amendment and act in accordance with their beliefs.
You give them absolute power and it's just a matter of when not if. We are dealing with opinions not physical objects.
No matter what you think, the second amendment is just words on paper. It's the people that give it power, give absolute power over those words to a small group and what it means is what they say it means, not what you or I want it to mean.
El_Guapo77
NES Member
xtry51
NES Member
Again the power I proposed is only to veto laws unilaterally. Please explain how the power to veto a law from congress has anything to to do with a constitutional amendment.
But most gun-control laws (the most onerous ones, such as the one Bruen overturned) are state laws, not federal ones. You're now saying the US Supreme Court should have original jurisdiction over state laws?
How is that constitutional?
they veto laws banning abortion
they veto PLCAA
xtry51
NES Member
The solution to that is constitutional amendment.
xtry51
NES Member
Is this a serious question? Yes. States should not be allowed to violate the constitution.
Are you trying to say Bruen shouldn't have been decided in favor of gun owners?
I'm saying that lower courts are part of due process. And that due process is a bedrock principle of liberty.
pastera
NES Member
SCOTUS need not take up anything unilaterally - any law egregious enough that they would take it up without prompt is one that would have a group petitioning the moment it was signed.
xtry51
NES Member
No one is saying get rid of lower courts. I proposed adding a tool, not removing the current ones.
It's an unnecessary tool. As three or four of us have pointed out, there is already a mechanism that does what you want... WITHOUT an unelected government employee exercising his sole will.
And also, it's not in the constitution. Which doesn't say much about SCOTUS, but it does list specific times when it has original jurisdiction. And your "proposal" is not included in there.
"The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority, to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." (Article III, Section I, United States Constitution)
So. Your proposal is unconstitutional.
and he sided with the Libs on the abortion case.
Oh, and he also was the one who leaked the draft for that same case. Know how I know? They said they couldn't determine who it was and Roberts wasn't going to come out of the closet and admit he did it. If it was simply a clerk he'd have thrown them out, unless it was a Black clerk and we know how afraid Roberts is to be called racist.
I think he's more afraid of his adventures on pedo island being brought out in public.
He's compromised.
xtry51
NES Member
I clearly said I was proposing alterations to the constitution.
SFC13557
NES Member
Abortion was NOT a right and was erroneously decided by SCOTUS, even Ginsberg agreed. SCOTUS doesn't MAKE laws, the legislature does.
2A is a right because it's in the Bill of Rights which we all know.
you should read the whole discussion, which was never about abortion or 2a, because you prove the point very well.
Opinions of SCOTUS on what is and isn't a right change, and while they may fit the views now, that can and has changed. This is why we don't give even SCOTUS the unlimited power to just pick a law and throw it out. The court process is the buffer that stops SCOTUS from becoming the tyrannical leaders of a subjugated country.
What the hell???
xtry51
NES Member
I know. Most people find freedom scary. That's why we live under the current corrupt shitshow.
Laughing out loud. No, most people find misinformation scary . . .
Probably, buy I want to stick to discussing what we know about him. Let's not make his pedo island stuff the next Dave Depape theory.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
I'll bite.
Someone files a case; SCOTUS grants cert; then a "new interpretation" is issued. The 2A is like abortion - two different people can read the text and confidently declare it supports their personal preference for public policy. Currently, it only takes 5 of 9 with a preferred public policy to make it so. It is an unthinkable to us that that 2A confirms the right of a governmental subdivision to arm itself, but equally unthinkable to out opponents on the issue to believe that the 2A confers an individual right. Even former Justice Stevens sincerely believed that the 2A did not confer an individual right.
Do not underestimate the sincerity of the beliefs of our opponents. The "know with certainty" that they are right, just as we know that we are.
xtry51
NES Member
What you wrote here has zero application to what I proposed.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Old Racist Gun Laws Enter Modern-Day Legal Battles
Government lawyers, asked to find historical support for firearm restrictions, reluctantly cite laws that kept guns from Black people, Native Americans and Catholics.
www.wsj.com
CA using Jim Crow laws as evidence of historical traditions in gun restrictions. Waiting for the outrage from Civil Rights activists…
“In December, Judge Benitez, a President George W. Bush appointee considering legal challenges to several state restrictions, ordered California to draw up a list of any “relevantly similar” historical laws. In the ammunition background-check case, the state listed more than 100 laws from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. More than three-quarters of them explicitly targeted slaves, free Blacks, Native Americans and Catholics.
“I was kind of in shock when they first sent us the spreadsheets,” said Konstadinos Moros, a lawyer with Michel and Associates PC, which represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association, a plaintiff in several lawsuits against the state. “We found these racist laws they were citing that were clearly not relevant to the case.”
Lawyers for California disagree, saying their survey of statutes buttresses their assertion that the state’s background-check law is “rooted in the historical tradition—dating back to the founding—of disarming groups of people perceived to be dangerous or unvirtuous.”
xtry51
NES Member
CA should just pass another slavery law and just go for it.
CA's legislature wants people that have moved out of state to keep paying CA taxes for several years. That's indentured servitude without being convicted of a crime.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Naw. You don't understand. Taking your resources away from them is the crime.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
I dont think you understand what I posted.
"Cap'n Mike said:
It seems most of the abuse in the judicial branch isnt striking down laws, its upholding them."
There are too many un constitutional laws that the Judicial branch has upheld when they should have been struck down.
They're just following the IRS' example, sadly. The US Government expects the same thing.
CA and NY are in a race for draconian hell holes.
