USMB liberals, what is the role of SCOTUS to you?

[KGB]

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

What role is that? The Militia clause has no legal implications whatsoever. "Interpreting" the Constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, not change what it says. Morons like you would have us believe that "the people" means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it means in the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

 

[candycorn]

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

No you interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. The Founders always intended it to be an individual right. The court finally got it right in 2008.

Put another way, they interpreted what the founders meant.

 

[KGB]

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

No you interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. The Founders always intended it to be an individual right. The court finally got it right in 2008.

Put another way, they interpreted what the founders meant.

Which is precisely the way any Constitutional issue should be interpreted...

 

[candycorn]

What role is that? The Militia clause has no legal implications whatsoever. "Interpreting" the Constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, not change what it says. Morons like you would have us believe that "the people" means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it means in the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

 

[candycorn]

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

No you interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. The Founders always intended it to be an individual right. The court finally got it right in 2008.

Put another way, they interpreted what the founders meant.

Which is precisely the way any Constitutional issue should be interpreted...

So it's open to interpretation...as long as you agree with the outcome?

 

[JusticeHammer]

Liberals, let’s pony up.

What do you think is the role of SCOTUS and why does Kavanaugh freak you out so much?

Let me just say this...

If you pass Constitutional laws through the legislative process, you have nothing to worry about.

Kavanaugh seems to be a jurist who supports the Constitution.

Why does that scare you?

Yep, following the Constitution confuses the crap out of libtards.

Not really

We wrote the damned thing

Still lying.

 

[JusticeHammer]

SCOTUS is the final verdict on the Constitutionality of an issue
They also resolve cases elevated from the lower courts

So given that they are the last stop on American Justice, you would want every single one of them to be held to the highest standard of impartiality, correct?

And yet your beloved Justice Ginsburg in 2015 gave a public interview to the press on exactly how she was going to cast on Obergefell a full month before she heard the facts of the case. I think the OP's question is a fair one.

RBG is the best Constitutional scholar on the court and the most respected

Wrong.

 

[KGB]

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

[KGB]

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

No you interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. The Founders always intended it to be an individual right. The court finally got it right in 2008.

Put another way, they interpreted what the founders meant.

Which is precisely the way any Constitutional issue should be interpreted...

So it's open to interpretation...as long as you agree with the outcome?

It’s open to interpretating it as the Founders originally meant. The Amendment process was put in place to change it. Now we will hopefully have a Supreme Court who will act on the premise of originality in its rulings.

 

[candycorn]

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

 

[candycorn]

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

No you interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. The Founders always intended it to be an individual right. The court finally got it right in 2008.

Put another way, they interpreted what the founders meant.

Which is precisely the way any Constitutional issue should be interpreted...

So it's open to interpretation...as long as you agree with the outcome?

It’s open to interpretating it as the Founders originally meant. The Amendment process was put in place to change it. Now we will hopefully have a Supreme Court who will act on the premise of originality in its rulings.

So now anyone who wishes to read the minds of the founders can be the interpreter? Again, what do you think the founders would have said about my publishing your Social Security number or someone's child's failing grades or medical records in the local newspaper?

 

[KGB]

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

So the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked...

well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

Gun owners have a moral responsibility to be trained in a firearm’s proper use, but the government may not require them to do so. Nor may the gvt infringe upon their right to purchase a firearm.

 

[KGB]

No you interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. The Founders always intended it to be an individual right. The court finally got it right in 2008.

Put another way, they interpreted what the founders meant.

Which is precisely the way any Constitutional issue should be interpreted...

So it's open to interpretation...as long as you agree with the outcome?

It’s open to interpretating it as the Founders originally meant. The Amendment process was put in place to change it. Now we will hopefully have a Supreme Court who will act on the premise of originality in its rulings.

So now anyone who wishes to read the minds of the founders can be the interpreter? Again, what do you think the founders would have said about my publishing your Social Security number or someone's child's failing grades or medical records in the local newspaper?

The Constitution tells the gvt what it may and may not do. That is it’s purpose. It’s purpose is not to tell the people what they may not do.

What are you even talking about regarding publishing personal data? That has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[candycorn]

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

So the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked...

well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

Gun owners have a moral responsibility to be trained in a firearm’s proper use, but the government may not require them to do so. Nor may the gvt infringe upon their right to purchase a firearm.

So now our safety depends on the purchaser's morality....great. LOL

Would the same reliance upon someone's morality apply to the clerk at a bank who knows your bank account numbers?

Yes the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked....

 

[candycorn]

Put another way, they interpreted what the founders meant.

Which is precisely the way any Constitutional issue should be interpreted...

So it's open to interpretation...as long as you agree with the outcome?

It’s open to interpretating it as the Founders originally meant. The Amendment process was put in place to change it. Now we will hopefully have a Supreme Court who will act on the premise of originality in its rulings.

So now anyone who wishes to read the minds of the founders can be the interpreter? Again, what do you think the founders would have said about my publishing your Social Security number or someone's child's failing grades or medical records in the local newspaper?

The Constitution tells the gvt what it may and may not do. That is it’s purpose. It’s purpose is not to tell the people what they may not do.

What are you even talking about regarding publishing personal data? That has nothing to do with the topic.

Hence the Title of the OP. If you enjoy no privacy as afforded by our constitution which is silent on the matter...I can therefore publish all of your private information, sell it to anyone I want, make a mint off of just selling your data to whomever wants to buy it then...right? Any state laws prohibiting such selling/publishing would be unconstitutional as a result.

Right?

 

[Darkwind]

Beyond just restating the court's constitutional role as an arbiter of the constitution and one part of a system of checks and balances between the branches of government, I think the most important role the court has played over the last ~100 years is in progressively moving closer and closer to actually realizing some of the ideals found in the Declaration of Independence, e.g. in recognizing that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really ought to be a right enjoyed by all.

Expanding the actual protection of rights to more and more people has tended to involve defending the ideal against a hegemonic culture that has often rejected rights in practice for various groups, whether African Americans, women, LGBTQ people, and so on. The court has also played an important role in expanding individual liberty against various authoritarian impulses, especially with regard to the first amendment during the course of the 20th century.

I think the court also ought to play a role in defending the democratic process from being eroded in various ways, i.e. by strongly protecting voting rights and rejecting gerrymandering schemes, and taking a stronger interest in the corrupting influences of money on the process. I think the court has failed more often than not lately in that regard.

All of the above in my view relates directly to the court being a custodian of the spirit of the constitution (e.g. I find "originalist" presuppostions dubious, for a number of reasons) and that ideal which the Declaration so eloquently states.

I may disagree with your concept of what rights have been withheld from these groups you point out, but at least your post is thoughtful and along the traditional liberal thought process. Kudos to you.

I thought you guys were all extinct.

 

[KGB]

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

So the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked...

well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

Gun owners have a moral responsibility to be trained in a firearm’s proper use, but the government may not require them to do so. Nor may the gvt infringe upon their right to purchase a firearm.

So now our safety depends on the purchaser's morality....great. LOL

Would the same reliance upon someone's morality apply to the clerk at a bank who knows your bank account numbers?

Yes the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked....

The Oxford Dictionary is the gold standard & recognizes authority of the English language. Their whole purpose is to document & provide meaning to the language writ large. It also tracks meaning of words throughout history. So you can pretty much bank on it.

About | Oxford English Dictionary

To answer your ridiculous question, you do that already. Every time you give your credit card to someone you are extending trust they won’t skim your number.

And yes safety & security aren’t based on laws that criminals don’t follow (hence why they are criminals), but on the notion they don’t know which of their would be victims is armed or not armed. It’s called deterrence.

 

[KGB]

Which is precisely the way any Constitutional issue should be interpreted...

So it's open to interpretation...as long as you agree with the outcome?

It’s open to interpretating it as the Founders originally meant. The Amendment process was put in place to change it. Now we will hopefully have a Supreme Court who will act on the premise of originality in its rulings.

So now anyone who wishes to read the minds of the founders can be the interpreter? Again, what do you think the founders would have said about my publishing your Social Security number or someone's child's failing grades or medical records in the local newspaper?

The Constitution tells the gvt what it may and may not do. That is it’s purpose. It’s purpose is not to tell the people what they may not do.

What are you even talking about regarding publishing personal data? That has nothing to do with the topic.

Hence the Title of the OP. If you enjoy no privacy as afforded by our constitution which is silent on the matter...I can therefore publish all of your private information, sell it to anyone I want, make a mint off of just selling your data to whomever wants to buy it then...right? Any state laws prohibiting such selling/publishing would be unconstitutional as a result.

Right?

It would be criminal because you don’t own that data. Ever notice the small print on sites regarding your data? The Constitution grants the legislature the authority to pass laws. That’s why there are laws against what you described. As long as those laws don’t violate a protected right, it’s good.

I’m guessing you’re going to try & throw up next the Constitution doesn’t mention murder, so the gvt can’t legislate against it

 

[candycorn]

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

So the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked...

well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

Gun owners have a moral responsibility to be trained in a firearm’s proper use, but the government may not require them to do so. Nor may the gvt infringe upon their right to purchase a firearm.

So now our safety depends on the purchaser's morality....great. LOL

Would the same reliance upon someone's morality apply to the clerk at a bank who knows your bank account numbers?

Yes the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked....

The Oxford Dictionary is the gold standard & recognizes authority of the English language. Their whole purpose is to document & provide meaning to the language writ large. It also tracks meaning of words throughout history. So you can pretty much bank on it.

About | Oxford English Dictionary

To answer your ridiculous question, you do that already. Every time you give your credit card to someone you are extending trust they won’t skim your number.

Your link to it was cherry picked. Citing only supporting evidence is the essence of cherry picking.

No the question is whether it is against the law to publish the credit card number, to sell the credit card number.

Trust is something you're injecting.

 

[candycorn]

So it's open to interpretation...as long as you agree with the outcome?

It’s open to interpretating it as the Founders originally meant. The Amendment process was put in place to change it. Now we will hopefully have a Supreme Court who will act on the premise of originality in its rulings.

So now anyone who wishes to read the minds of the founders can be the interpreter? Again, what do you think the founders would have said about my publishing your Social Security number or someone's child's failing grades or medical records in the local newspaper?

The Constitution tells the gvt what it may and may not do. That is it’s purpose. It’s purpose is not to tell the people what they may not do.

What are you even talking about regarding publishing personal data? That has nothing to do with the topic.

Hence the Title of the OP. If you enjoy no privacy as afforded by our constitution which is silent on the matter...I can therefore publish all of your private information, sell it to anyone I want, make a mint off of just selling your data to whomever wants to buy it then...right? Any state laws prohibiting such selling/publishing would be unconstitutional as a result.

Right?

It would be criminal because you don’t own that data.

Oh...so it's a matter of ownership. That determines if your data can be transmitted, published, sold, etc... Right?