Is Obama's Supreme Court Pick A Trojan Horse For Gun Control?

[Disir]

What cases are you watching?

Many are up for the Supremes.........some with States opposing Obama's actions..........with 8 supremes.......

Tell me you don't think we have Judicial Activism in this country.............

What cases?

Maybe later.............I don't feel like pulling up the supreme court schedule right now........You can google it if you like.

You have no idea because you aren't watching any.

I watch them from time to time when it suits me...............doesn't change the deal that we have no reason to let Obama pick a new Justice..................

No. You watch them if IF someone in the media tells you to. You have decided against any because someone told you to. That's fine but the reality is that you don't give a shit. It makes for some entertainment and superficial nonsense.

 

[eagle1462010]

I follow when I choose.......tell me about the Sacketts in Idaho..............Enjoy it.

 

[Disir]

I follow when I choose.......tell me about the Sacketts in Idaho..............Enjoy it.

For you this is nothing more than an attempt to drum up votes. You're no different from those on the left who scream about shit they don't bother to read.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tell me about the Sacketts.............tell me about California and their votes being dismissed on same sex marriage by the courts.....

 

[Disir]

Tell me about the Sacketts.............tell me about California and their votes being dismissed on same sex marriage by the courts.....

You can't handle the discussion we are having.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tell me about the Sacketts.............tell me about California and their votes being dismissed on same sex marriage by the courts.....

You can't handle the discussion we are having.

I gave you a past SCOTUS case.......did you look it up............did those people get fucked by the EPA..............That is an example..........and I don't have to play in this thread by your rules...........

The OP is about an appointment and not a particular case................Obama can pound sand.

Now check out the Sackett case and watch our gov't fuck them.

 

[Disir]

Tell me about the Sacketts.............tell me about California and their votes being dismissed on same sex marriage by the courts.....

You can't handle the discussion we are having.

I gave you a past SCOTUS case.......did you look it up............did those people get fucked by the EPA..............That is an example..........and I don't have to play in this thread by your rules...........

The OP is about an appointment and not a particular case................Obama can pound sand.

Now check out the Sackett case and watch our gov't fuck them.

You aren't watching any currently. It was a 9-0 decision and, frankly, doesn't do anything for your argument. In fact, it makes your argument look silly. Nope, you don't have to play by my rules. I'm simply pointing out how superficial your stance is.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tell me about the Sacketts.............tell me about California and their votes being dismissed on same sex marriage by the courts.....

You can't handle the discussion we are having.

I gave you a past SCOTUS case.......did you look it up............did those people get fucked by the EPA..............That is an example..........and I don't have to play in this thread by your rules...........

The OP is about an appointment and not a particular case................Obama can pound sand.

Now check out the Sackett case and watch our gov't fuck them.

You aren't watching any currently. It was a 9-0 decision and, frankly, doesn't do anything for your argument. In fact, it makes your argument look silly. Nope, you don't have to play by my rules. I'm simply pointing out how superficial your stance is.

You are giving an opinion and that is all................

So you looked up one that I did follow...................I followed it because I was interested in it..............and it showed the EPA abuse of power...............A Little couple took the EPA to the Supreme Court and Won..........after being basically abused...........

While our Congress doesn't do anything............

I follow cases only when they appeal to me. I'm not currently following any..............who the fuck cares...........changes nothing to the OP.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is Obama's Supreme Court Pick A Trojan Horse For Gun Control?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

 

[eagle1462010]

"Is Obama's Supreme Court Pick A Trojan Horse For Gun Control?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Well, what is his position on the 2nd...................will he uphold it are not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“[Garland] likely will take decidedly liberal views on issues such as abortion, the environment and executive authority.”

Views consistent with settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – as a judge or justice should do in accordance with the rule of law.

Unfortunately, it's conservative judges and justices who would likely ignore that settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence, ruling instead based on errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma, in violation of the rule of law.

 

[Disir]

Tell me about the Sacketts.............tell me about California and their votes being dismissed on same sex marriage by the courts.....

You can't handle the discussion we are having.

I gave you a past SCOTUS case.......did you look it up............did those people get fucked by the EPA..............That is an example..........and I don't have to play in this thread by your rules...........

The OP is about an appointment and not a particular case................Obama can pound sand.

Now check out the Sackett case and watch our gov't fuck them.

You aren't watching any currently. It was a 9-0 decision and, frankly, doesn't do anything for your argument. In fact, it makes your argument look silly. Nope, you don't have to play by my rules. I'm simply pointing out how superficial your stance is.

You are giving an opinion and that is all................

So you looked up one that I did follow...................I followed it because I was interested in it..............and it showed the EPA abuse of power...............A Little couple took the EPA to the Supreme Court and Won..........after being basically abused...........

While our Congress doesn't do anything............

I follow cases only when they appeal to me. I'm not currently following any..............who the fuck cares...........changes nothing to the OP.

And they took the case in front of "liberals". Funny how that works, eh? If you think your rights have been violated you can do the same.
It changes everything in the OP because the folks that own McConnell own your thought process as well. We are Americans and we have a system that functions when we think independently. The one that I firmly believe would do the best job does not want to. That puts us both in the same position to an extent.

 

[Disir]

"Is Obama's Supreme Court Pick A Trojan Horse For Gun Control?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Well, what is his position on the 2nd...................will he uphold it are not.

It's incorporated.

 

[Conservative65]

The Supreme Court can't change The Constitution.

Sure they can. The Liberal ones tell us there are terms in it that aren't there. Based on their decisions, those things are applied as if they are thought none would be able to show them in the text of the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When Trump loses, the US will have 3 or 4 more justices. Deal with it.

If the next president serves two terms, he/she could make as many as five appointments to the Supreme Court.

 

[Disir]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

 

[Conservative65]

The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution, either.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which theSupreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's rightto possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit inHeller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of theFirearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , norPresser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Show me where The Constitution says The Supreme Court has the power to interpret tHe Constitution.

It doesn't. The Supreme Court, wait for it, gave themselves the ability to do something the Constitution doesn't specifically give them the authority to do. Certain Justices seems to think there are words in the Constitution that simply aren't there.

 

[Conservative65]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

 

[Disir]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

But, I don't need to. Prior to the incorporation of rights.............you didn't have any.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court can't change The Constitution.

No one said it could.

Rulings made by the Supreme Court don't 'change' the Constitution, invalidating laws repugnant to the Constitution doesn't 'change' the Constitution.

Indeed, many measures struck down by the courts are known to be un-Constitutional in light of the case law, yet many partisan rightists enact those measures anyway to provoke a court fight perceived to garner conservatives some perceived political gain.

The interpretive authority of the courts is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – consistent with the understanding and intent of the Founding Generation, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution, where to determine what the Constitution means or to invalidate laws inconsistent with Constitutional case law in no way 'changes' the Constitution.