Page 228 of 240 FirstFirst ... 128178218223224225226227228229230231232233238 ... LastLast
Results 4,541 to 4,560 of 4789

Thread: Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Embracing Trumpism/White Supremacy

  1. #4541
    Ishmael Smith Junebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Open to suggestions
    Posts
    4,784
    Quote Originally Posted by AsesinoDeTortugas View Post
    I’m not arguing about intent. You say original meaning matters. I’m saying that who the writer is and what they believe in shapes what words are used and therefore what meaning a law has.

    But it’s beside the point, you’ll never back down from originalism. But at the end of the day, even Scalia dint apply originalism consistently. No court ever has. It’s a terrible interpretative philosophy that appeals to a certain subgroup of legal minds that don’t want to bother with critical thinking.
    Lol

    You just want the court to have the flexibility to impose your preferred policy choices under the guise of “interpretation.” I get it. I would like that too. But I believe that a predictable interpretive method is a better way to do law than just holding the constitution says what I want it to say.

  2. #4542

  3. #4543
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    104,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Lol

    You just want the court to have the flexibility to impose your preferred policy choices under the guise of “interpretation.” I get it. I would like that too. But I believe that a predictable interpretive method is a better way to do law than just holding the constitution says what I want it to say.
    This coming from someone whose understanding of 2A completely ignores a well-regulated militia.

  4. #4544
    Every time Junebug posts I think of this:

    https://www.theonion.com/jurispruden...ity-1819586446

  5. #4545
    Rusty Larue
    DeaconSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    God's Country
    Posts
    10,138
    Y’all, if we don’t use originalism, people will marry furniture. Or something like that.

    It’s science.

  6. #4546
    Dickie Hemric
    sailordeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liver than you'll ever be
    Posts
    13,112
    if they don't have a right to own a gun, what are they gonna show up with to serve in the militia, a club?

    the problem for the gun-o-phobes is that if you didn't have a gun, you couldn't serve in the militia

    that is, private gun ownership pre-supposed serving in the militia

  7. #4547
    Dickie Hemric
    sailordeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liver than you'll ever be
    Posts
    13,112
    in short, the right of gun ownership preceded - as a matter of necessity - and was a precondition for serving in the militia

  8. #4548
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    104,206
    Quote Originally Posted by sailordeac View Post
    if they don't have a right to own a gun, what are they gonna show up with to serve in the militia, a club?

    the problem for the gun-o-phobes is that if you didn't have a gun, you couldn't serve in the militia

    that is, private gun ownership pre-supposed serving in the militia
    He said “Gun-o-phobes” as if it’s unreasonable to be scared of people with guns.

    So which well-regulated militia are current gun owners joining?

  9. #4549
    Dickie Hemric
    sailordeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liver than you'll ever be
    Posts
    13,112
    quit putting the cart before the horse, the Constitutional right to gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, and not the other way around; the Constitutional right to gun ownership was not based on participation in a militia, rather participating in a militia was based on the right to have a gun

  10. #4550
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    104,206
    You said gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, so which militias are gun owners participating in today?

  11. #4551
    Quote Originally Posted by sailordeac View Post
    quit putting the cart before the horse, the Constitutional right to gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, and not the other way around; the Constitutional right to gun ownership was not based on participation in a militia, rather participating in a militia was based on the right to have a gun
    I mean, the constitution literally put the militia before the gun right. The right to have a gun is preceded by the need to have a militia to secure the state, and the militia was preceded by the need for regulation and oversight of the militia.
    Birds are real.

  12. #4552
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    You said gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, so which militias are gun owners participating in today?
    I’m confused if we’re going by the words or the intent.

  13. #4553
    Regarding gun ownership, it's almost as if the Framers, when they were writing the Constitution in the late 1780s, had no way of knowing that in the future the single-shot musket would be replaced by semiautomatic rifles that could kill dozens of people within a few minutes at most. Being rather bright fellows, I would imagine that had they known, they would certainly have done the logical, common sense thing and clarified in the Second Amendment that such weapons were to be illegal for civilian use. But since they didn't, it's left to us to interpret the Second Amendment based on the vast changes in technology and society over the last 230 years or so. Too bad we can't do that, because we still have to follow the exact wording of men who wrote a document designed for an overwhelmingly rural eighteenth-century society, and then made it exceptionally difficult to revise or change, although the nation itself keeps changing in many different ways all the time.

  14. #4554
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    104,206
    Actually they made it pretty easy to change. Future leaders made it more difficult to change by adding more states and dividing them in weird ways to the point that we went from 13 to 50. Society became more politically polarized making it difficult to meet the necessary thresholds to add amendments.

  15. #4555
    Memo reveals a House Republican strategy on shootings: downplay white nationalism, blame left

    https://www.tampabay.com/florida-pol...sm-blame-left/

  16. #4556
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    104,206
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    Memo reveals a House Republican strategy on everything: downplay white nationalism, blame left

    https://www.tampabay.com/florida-pol...sm-blame-left/
    Fixed for accuracy.

  17. #4557
    Not enough to round them up in camps and separate parents from children, we'll now ensure more of them die from preventable diseases! https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/the-...r&par=sharebar

  18. #4558
    oh and let's add indefinite detainment:

  19. #4559
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    68,195
    Lawsuits are already being planned.

    There is another Executive Order being seriously considered that will allow states to deny entry for refugees.

    Is there any end to Trump and Miller bigotry?

  20. #4560
    DOJ condemns white nationalist content sent to immigration court employees

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) has acknowledged it made a mistake by sending a link to a white nationalist blog in an email sent to immigration court employees this week.

    A spokesperson for the agency's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) said that the agency had included the link mistakenly. The link, which directed users to the website VDare, contained negative and anti-Semitic comments about sitting immigration judges.
    oops?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •