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

[iceberg]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Democrats are upset with the change of the court Justices, now having to shift to being forced to use Congress to create laws.

this is a collective issue, not a democratic one. obama had to use executive orders to get things done because congress wasn't. not the left, not the right - but congress. they quit making laws for the most part cause it made people angry and it carried a responsibility they do not wish to carry.

tough. it's what *congress* should be doing. not the left, not the right - congress.

and the courts rule on the laws as applied to given situations.

 

[iceberg]

Seriously, board liberals, what do you think is the role of SCOTUS?

Just to give you a head start, the role of SCOTUS is to make sure that laws passed by Congress are Constitutional and enforced within the guidelines of the Constitution.

What do you think it’s for?

You just got an answer. What is your problem here?

Typical conservative thread

They demand a liberal response and then ignore all the responses they get and ask......why won’t liberals respond?

it's a call out thread. not a fan of these by any means so i'll just back out again and hit up another one.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dimms seem to think that SCOTUS makes Laws.

They do not.

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES makes the laws. The Supreme Court makes sure the laws passed by Congress are within the guidelines of the CONSTITUTION.

Just want to make sure we know our Civics.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Yes throughout history, it’s usually been against the law to sell something you don’t own.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

He/she is a typical ignorant snowflake.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Yes throughout history, it’s usually been against the law to sell something you don’t own.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

Ask KGB that is his interpretation of what "well regulated" means.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

It’s not my interpretation, it’s the Founders words & what they meant. See my links which clearly demonstrates this.

And no it does not imply that training is required to exercise the individual right either. That said, a responsible gun owner should want to seek out proper training to familiarize themselves with their firearm. It’s called being informed.

So now, your interpretation of “well trained” doesn’t mean training…. Wow.

Try to follow along....it’s not my interpretation. It’s how the authority on the English language defined it.

You just said Oxford said “well regulated” in our 2nd amendment means "well trained". Then you said “training is not required to exercise the individual right”. Essentially you are trying to pretend “well regulated” first means something else then trying to say that even though it is in the amendment, it has no meaning.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

Ask KGB that is his interpretation of what "well regulated" means.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

It’s not my interpretation, it’s the Founders words & what they meant. See my links which clearly demonstrates this.

And no it does not imply that training is required to exercise the individual right either. That said, a responsible gun owner should want to seek out proper training to familiarize themselves with their firearm. It’s called being informed.

So now, your interpretation of “well trained” doesn’t mean training…. Wow.

Try to follow along....it’s not my interpretation. It’s how the authority on the English language defined it.

You just said Oxford said “well regulated” in our 2nd amendment means "well trained". Then you said “training is not required to exercise the individual right”. Essentially you are trying to pretend “well regulated” first means something else then trying to say that even though it is in the amendment, it has no meaning.

the militia should be trained

however that has not a thing thing to do with

my right to own a firearm

 

[LoneLaugher]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Oh man! Thanks so much! We needed a thread started by a moron RW nut telling us what we perceive the role of the SC is. I can't wait to read what all of your moron pals have to say about what I think.

Your originality will be recognized by all. We've never had a thread like this before.

Speaking of morons, perhaps you can enlighten us with your worthless leftist traitor opinion of the function if the SC...

Why would I do that? You already know, don't ya? Go ahead. Tell everyone what I think.

You don't think. You take.

You mean like I just took a check for $1200 in exchange for something that cost me $700 to obtain?

You are correct. And I'll be taking again and again.

Bitch.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dimms use courts to pass laws they can't get passed in COngress.

Or to overturn laws voted on democratically, like Prop 8.

The majority spoke in that case, so the left wing loons got it overturned.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Damn Fingerboy

There you go again.....reciting half the amendment

No wonder we need courts

What does the other clause require the government to do?

Organize well regulated militias

Notice that you couldn't state it accurately. It doesn't use the word "organize." The militia clause commands nothing.

It sets the justification of why they wanted access to arms

It also provides a justification for registration, background checks, mandatory training and licensing

 

[SmokeALib]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Oh man! Thanks so much! We needed a thread started by a moron RW nut telling us what we perceive the role of the SC is. I can't wait to read what all of your moron pals have to say about what I think.

Your originality will be recognized by all. We've never had a thread like this before.

Speaking of morons, perhaps you can enlighten us with your worthless leftist traitor opinion of the function if the SC...

Why would I do that? You already know, don't ya? Go ahead. Tell everyone what I think.

You don't think. You take.

You mean like I just took a check for $1200 in exchange for something that cost me $700 to obtain?

You are correct. And I'll be taking again and again.

Bitch.

Damn. Didn't realize those pussy hats were going up in value. Thanks for the tip.

 

[ColonelAngus]

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?

Yes throughout history, it’s usually been against the law to sell something you don’t own.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

 

[candycorn]

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

Yes throughout history, it’s usually been against the law to sell something you don’t own.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

 

[ColonelAngus]

Yes throughout history, it’s usually been against the law to sell something you don’t own.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

Yes throughout history, it’s usually been against the law to sell something you don’t own.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

Or even the legal means by which to dispose of Creosote? I hear you.

You win. You know everything there is to know about the Constitution. It's apparently an exhaustive repository of all of our laws.

I had no idea.

 

[candycorn]

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

Or even the legal means by which to dispose of Creosote? I hear you.

You win. You know everything there is to know about the Constitution. It's apparently an exhaustive repository of all of our laws.

I had no idea.

About what I expected. A total cop out.

Don’t worry, you can come back tomorrow and make the same argument I just annihilated today.

Wait….who are we kidding? You’ll be back before noon with the same nonsense.

 

[ColonelAngus]

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

Or even the legal means by which to dispose of Creosote? I hear you.

You win. You know everything there is to know about the Constitution. It's apparently an exhaustive repository of all of our laws.

I had no idea.

About what I expected. A total cop out.

Don’t worry, you can come back tomorrow and make the same argument I just annihilated today.

Wait….who are we kidding? You’ll be back before noon with the same nonsense.

Ok, man. Good looking out.

Brush up on the Federalist Papers before you come back around, and get those ammendments passed so your side doesn't have to subvert the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Dimms seem to think that SCOTUS makes Laws.

They do not.

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES makes the laws. The Supreme Court makes sure the laws passed by Congress are within the guidelines of the CONSTITUTION.

Just want to make sure we know our Civics.

Where have Dems said the SCOTUS makes laws?

 

[rightwinger]

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

They do? Do you know your blood pressure? Your BMI? Your CBC or even your current body weight? Almost nobody knows their personal data. Our machines collect it. They came to us and our devices (we own them baby) determined the numbers.

I’m quite well schooled in HIPPA…please show where it has roots in our Constitution.

Again, I’m showing the lunacy of the “strict reading” of the Constitution.

No lunacy at all. it's a basis of governing.

It can be fucking altered, 2/3 vote in the house and senate ratifies an ammendment, you lunatic.

So, I ask you…in it’s current form, where does the Constitution prohibit me from publishing your social security number, your bank account numbers, your daughter's (if you have one) psychological diagnosis if I am privy to that information?

No bluster…no name calling…just cite the article, section, amendment, etc…

Or even the legal means by which to dispose of Creosote? I hear you.

You win. You know everything there is to know about the Constitution. It's apparently an exhaustive repository of all of our laws.

I had no idea.

About what I expected. A total cop out.

Don’t worry, you can come back tomorrow and make the same argument I just annihilated today.

Wait….who are we kidding? You’ll be back before noon with the same nonsense.

Ok, man. Good looking out.

Brush up on the Federalist Papers before you come back around, and get those ammendments passed so your side doesn't have to subvert the Constitution.

Federalist Papers are anonymous and have no legal bearing

 

[bripat9643]

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

Ask KGB that is his interpretation of what "well regulated" means.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

It’s not my interpretation, it’s the Founders words & what they meant. See my links which clearly demonstrates this.

And no it does not imply that training is required to exercise the individual right either. That said, a responsible gun owner should want to seek out proper training to familiarize themselves with their firearm. It’s called being informed.

So now, your interpretation of “well trained” doesn’t mean training…. Wow.

Try to follow along....it’s not my interpretation. It’s how the authority on the English language defined it.

You just said Oxford said “well regulated” in our 2nd amendment means "well trained". Then you said “training is not required to exercise the individual right”. Essentially you are trying to pretend “well regulated” first means something else then trying to say that even though it is in the amendment, it has no meaning.

The militia clause doesn't mandate anything, moron. It's explanatory. Please show where it forces government or the people to do something.

 

[bripat9643]

Dimms seem to think that SCOTUS makes Laws.

They do not.

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES makes the laws. The Supreme Court makes sure the laws passed by Congress are within the guidelines of the CONSTITUTION.

Just want to make sure we know our Civics.

Where have Dems said the SCOTUS makes laws?

Every time they say the Constitution is "elastic" they are saying the SCOTUS makes laws.