'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

[WEATHER53]

There is no indication the framers of the Constitution thought is would be very short lived
Another libbie lie merely repeated over and over by brain deads

 

[OKTexas]

Counting chicken before they hatch? Roberts will become the swing vote, he's already proven he has no problem legislating from the bench.


.

I still loathe him over the ACA.....

But lately he's been better.

Ginsburg dies....and it's game over.

Just pointing out he doesn't seem to think he's bound by written law, he stated it's the courts job to salvage a law instead of striking it down and sending it back to the legislature to fix. Then he chose to ignore 9 instances of black letter law, saying congress really didn't mean it. He's not the conservative Bush thought he would be.


.

True, but he is at least more conservative than a lot of other Justices appointed by Republican Presidents (like Kennedy himself.)

I'm not sure I can agree with that. He used the 4 comers doctrine like on the travel restriction decision and has thrown it out the window in others. Consistency is the hallmark of a good judge.


.

There is no getting around the fact that he has not been consistent.

However, he will have four strong right wingers after this nomination.

You have:

Breyer=====> Old
Ginsburg =====> Beyond old
Kagen======> Really stupid
SotoMeyer ======> Insanely stupid.

Ginburg croaks and you have 5 right wingers.

Breyer bites it =======> 6

Fact is I'm not looking for a strong right winger, I'm looking for someone who believes the Constitution means exactly what it says and it's not their place to rescue poorly written legislation.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, the original singers themselves didn't like it and thought it would be dead in 20 years, so it has lasted far longer than the writers thought it would, so there is that, even if that existence is largely mythical and imaginary.

It's been change 27 times since then.


.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I still loathe him over the ACA.....

But lately he's been better.

Ginsburg dies....and it's game over.

Just pointing out he doesn't seem to think he's bound by written law, he stated it's the courts job to salvage a law instead of striking it down and sending it back to the legislature to fix. Then he chose to ignore 9 instances of black letter law, saying congress really didn't mean it. He's not the conservative Bush thought he would be.


.

True, but he is at least more conservative than a lot of other Justices appointed by Republican Presidents (like Kennedy himself.)

I'm not sure I can agree with that. He used the 4 comers doctrine like on the travel restriction decision and has thrown it out the window in others. Consistency is the hallmark of a good judge.


.

There is no getting around the fact that he has not been consistent.

However, he will have four strong right wingers after this nomination.

You have:

Breyer=====> Old
Ginsburg =====> Beyond old
Kagen======> Really stupid
SotoMeyer ======> Insanely stupid.

Ginburg croaks and you have 5 right wingers.

Breyer bites it =======> 6

Were you born in 1992, or is 92 your IQ? The Alt. Right is neo fascism, you're either too young or too dumb to appreciate how evil that is.

Suck on it.

You lost.

You are about to lose again.

 

[Richard-H]

Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.

In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Sure. The Second Amendment is not unlimited. No one argues the legitimacy of abrogating the right of the severely mentally ill to own firearms, nor of people who have been convicted of violent crimes, for example.

But there's a big difference between saying, "No right is unlimited" and saying, "Therefore, I don't have to respect your right at all."

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fact is I'm not looking for a strong right winger, I'm looking for someone who believes the Constitution means exactly what it says and it's not their place to rescue poorly written legislation.

Yes. 100% agree.

All statutes and contracts are interpreted by giving full effect and meaning to every word, but that method, for some reason, has been ignored in the last 80 years, in favor of an inexact, politically motivated method of ignoring the plain language. In other words, this:

It's alive! It's ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!!!!

 

[OKTexas]

Fact is I'm not looking for a strong right winger, I'm looking for someone who believes the Constitution means exactly what it says and it's not their place to rescue poorly written legislation.

Yes. 100% agree.

All statutes and contracts are interpreted by giving full effect and meaning to every word, but that method, for some reason, has been ignored in the last 80 years, in favor of an inexact, politically motivated method of ignoring the plain language. In other words, this:

It's alive! It's ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!!!!

Yep, Article five is the only legitimate way to alter the Constitution, some dumb ass lawyer can't just re-imagine it. Also known as doing what ever the hell they want.


.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

Give just three examples of current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

Give just three examples of current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."

DC gun laws

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

Give just three examples of current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."

DC gun laws

Pay attention to what was written. DC gun laws are were never Federal statutes and if you're going to try to tie that to Heller, I suggest you read the first two paragraphs of Section III that Scalia wrote, which includes what Richard-H wrote and to which you responded. So it looks like you can't name just three Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents to back up your boast that;

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

Give just three examples of current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."

Don't believe anyone said the left had SUCCEEDED, just that they wanted to.

Your straw man is like saying that because I haven't actually become a millionaire, that's proof that I don't want to be one.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Don't believe anyone said the left had SUCCEEDED, just that they wanted to.

Your straw man is like saying that because I haven't actually become a millionaire, that's proof that I don't want to be one.

The implication of action was in the other poster's statement, which certainly didn't imply collective inaction. No straw man existed in this now three-way exchange until your post hit the board!

Dismissed!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't believe anyone said the left had SUCCEEDED, just that they wanted to.

Your straw man is like saying that because I haven't actually become a millionaire, that's proof that I don't want to be one.

The implication of action was in the other poster's statement, which certainly didn't imply collective inaction. No straw man existed in this now three-way exchange until your post hit the board!

Dismissed!

I just heard "Blah de blah RUN AWAYYYYY!!!"

Was that what you meant to say?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

Give just three examples of current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."

DC gun laws

Pay attention to what was written. DC gun laws are were never Federal statutes and if you're going to try to tie that to Heller, I suggest you read the first two paragraphs of Section III that Scalia wrote, which includes what Richard-H wrote and to which you responded. So it looks like you can't name just three Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents to back up your boast that;

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

So you have no problem with states passing anti abortion legislation. After all it’s not federal and you can’t name three laws that currently limit it to the point it doesn’t exist. All good then right? Guns are safe, abortions are safe. No need to fret over who becomes the next judge on the SCOTUS.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Don't believe anyone said the left had SUCCEEDED, just that they wanted to.

Your straw man is like saying that because I haven't actually become a millionaire, that's proof that I don't want to be one.

The implication of action was in the other poster's statement, which certainly didn't imply collective inaction. No straw man existed in this now three-way exchange until your post hit the board!

Dismissed!

I just heard "Blah de blah RUN AWAYYYYY!!!"

Was that what you meant to say?

I just heard "Blah de blah RUN AWAYYYYY!!!"

Was that what you meant to say?

No not at all. Properly decoded what I meant was...you're wrong, you intended a not so subtle slight and went off topic in the process now, so piss the fuck off! Did I make that clear this time or are you going to troll some more?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

That's not true. No right is an unlimited right, so government can regulate your rights.

Per Justice Scalia:

“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

Give just three examples of current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."

DC gun laws

Pay attention to what was written. DC gun laws are were never Federal statutes and if you're going to try to tie that to Heller, I suggest you read the first two paragraphs of Section III that Scalia wrote, which includes what Richard-H wrote and to which you responded. So it looks like you can't name just three Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents to back up your boast that;

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

So you have no problem with states passing anti abortion legislation. After all it’s not federal and you can’t name three laws that currently limit it to the point it doesn’t exist. All good then right? Guns are safe, abortions are safe. No need to fret over who becomes the next judge on the SCOTUS.

So you have no problem with states passing anti abortion legislation. After all it’s not federal and you can’t name three laws that currently limit it to the point it doesn’t exist. All good then right? Guns are safe, abortions are safe. No need to fret over who becomes the next judge on the SCOTUS.

So you CAN'T come up with three examples of "...current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."" And therefore can't substantiate your claim with even one! Got it!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't believe anyone said the left had SUCCEEDED, just that they wanted to.

Your straw man is like saying that because I haven't actually become a millionaire, that's proof that I don't want to be one.

The implication of action was in the other poster's statement, which certainly didn't imply collective inaction. No straw man existed in this now three-way exchange until your post hit the board!

Dismissed!

I just heard "Blah de blah RUN AWAYYYYY!!!"

Was that what you meant to say?

I just heard "Blah de blah RUN AWAYYYYY!!!"

Was that what you meant to say?

No not at all. Properly decoded what I meant was...you're wrong, you intended a not so subtle slight and went off topic in the process now, so piss the fuck off! Did I make that clear this time or are you going to troll some more?

So in fact, that WAS what you were saying. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

Give just three examples of current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."

DC gun laws

Pay attention to what was written. DC gun laws are were never Federal statutes and if you're going to try to tie that to Heller, I suggest you read the first two paragraphs of Section III that Scalia wrote, which includes what Richard-H wrote and to which you responded. So it looks like you can't name just three Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents to back up your boast that;

The problem is the left doesn’t just want to limit rights they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist.

So you have no problem with states passing anti abortion legislation. After all it’s not federal and you can’t name three laws that currently limit it to the point it doesn’t exist. All good then right? Guns are safe, abortions are safe. No need to fret over who becomes the next judge on the SCOTUS.

So you have no problem with states passing anti abortion legislation. After all it’s not federal and you can’t name three laws that currently limit it to the point it doesn’t exist. All good then right? Guns are safe, abortions are safe. No need to fret over who becomes the next judge on the SCOTUS.

So you CAN'T come up with three examples of "...current Federal statutes or SCOTUS precedents that have the effect of limiting Constitutional rights, "...to the point they don’t exist."" And therefore can't substantiate your claim with even one! Got it!!

"So now my straw man is nice and big, and that must mean I WIN!"

Sorry, Sparkles, but it's still bullshit. He STILL said, "they want to limit them to the point they don’t exist", there STILL is no "implication" involved, and you STILL don't get to demand that he prove something he never said.