That it was 5-4, is Scary!

Watermark said:
I thought striking down a law was legislating from the bench? But you say, that if they had let this law stand, it's legislation from the bench?

Am I to understand that "legislate from the bench", to you, basically means any court decision you disagree with?
Click to expand...


"Legislating from the bench" along with "judicial activist" are just euphemisms for "reached a decision that I disagree with" but unlike what CK said, the use of these terms is not isolated among Republicans.
 
Dungheap said:
"Legislating from the bench" along with "judicial activist" are just euphemisms for "reached a decision that I disagree with" but unlike what CK said, the use of these terms is not isolated among Republicans.
Click to expand...

I've pretty much only ever heard it from Republicans post Brown v. Board of Education.
 
Watermark said:
I thought striking down a law was legislating from the bench? But you say, that if they had let this law stand, it's legislation from the bench?

Am I to understand that "legislate from the bench", to you, basically means any court decision you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Striking down a law that is in violation of our 2nd Amendment is NOT legislating from the bench, you have a retarded view of what the term means. It has nothing to do with "republican ideology" or what conservatives believe, it has to do with the US Constitution and what it means and says our rights are.

The 2nd Amendment clearly gives us the right to bear arms, and any reading of documents of the time from our founding fathers will support this in total, without ambiguity, without question. They NEVER intended anything other than what the 2nd Amendment has always meant, and always will mean, and you and the liberal cabal who are trying to take over America through judicial fiat, are not going to make it mean something different.
 
Watermark said:
I've pretty much only ever heard it from Republicans post Brown v. Board of Education.
Click to expand...

You're pretty much a retard who wants to hurl false charges of racism at conservatives because you are a closet racist yourself. Up until the days of Jimmy Carter, we had a fairly conservative, orginalist court, which supported Brown v. BoE. The term "orginalist" was not even used until 40 years after Brown, and wasn't an issue. Yet, you want to try and tie racism to conservatives, so you can feel good about your own racist views, I guess. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and anyone without mental retardation should be able to recognize that.
 
Dixie said:
This week, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to deny Americans their 2nd Amendment rights. You would think such a vote would be unanimous, since the court is supposed to determine constitutionality, and denying 2nd Amendment rights would clearly not be constitutional. But, the vote was 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy providing the decisive vote.

This is how far to the left we have slid. We are dangerously close to having a court majority who feel they can literally re-write our constitution, through re-interpretations, which means none of our rights are sacred or guaranteed. There was nothing ambiguous about the positions of our Founding Fathers on the issue of the right to bear arms. Every single one of them, felt this was a fundamental right for Americans, and supposedly insured it by making it the 2nd Amendment, just behind our freedom of religion and speech.

Opponents of the 2nd will often say "times have changed" and this is their main argument of support for their position. Well, times have changed, we do live in a more violent and dangerous time, but that seems to lend even more strength to the importance OF the 2nd Amendment! Why would MORE danger and violence, diminish the right to bear arms? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Yes, we need to be diligent in knowing who we sell arms to, and we should scrutinize individuals who want to purchase arms, but there should never be a question of our fundamental right to bear arms.

So why did we have an unusually close vote on such an obvious issue? Because our Supreme Court has 4 members who shouldn't be on the court at all, and should probably be advocating socialist communism in Russia instead. I don't really care who appointed them, I know this is the first knee-jerk response I will get from pinheads... "so-and-so was appointed by a republican!" It doesn't matter who appointed the bad judges! We are at a precarious point, where a single SCOTUS appointment could fundamentally change our nation! Perhaps this is the illusive "CHANGE" we keep hearing about from Obama?

There are several important issues in the upcoming elections, but I think the most overlooked and important issue, is the Supreme Court appointments. The next president will likely have several. The question at hand is, what kind of America do you want? The America which stands on the fundamental principles of the Founding Fathers, as it has for over 200 years? Or, some Euro-Socialist amalgamation of liberal eliteness and reform? Do we support the premise that 'We The People' have the power to amend and change our constitution with the times, or do we want to give this power to men in black robes to decide through re-interpreting the constitution to fit their agenda?

It seems like such a simple and obvious choice, but then again, so did this week's SC decision on the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment!
Click to expand...

Jesus Fucken Katty Christ Dixie! You've backed every one of W's insipid violations of our Constitutional rights and when a couple of center left justices back a gun law that's 32 years old you see it as a communist take over?

What fucking wood pile do you live under? Where the hell have you been for the last 8 years while right wing fascist cloaked in flags and bearing bibles have run roughshod over our freedoms.

Ya'll need to go back under that woodpile and quit drinking that local moonshine.
 
Kathianne said:
Solitary said:
Rights that are guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be taken away by the states.
Click to expand...
That is my reading of the Constitution. On the other hand, rights given to the states are not to be usurped by the Federal Government. The states keep what is not enumerated.
Click to expand...
Originally the Bill of Rights was directed at the federal government. The first Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...."

But in 1866 the 14th Amendment was added. And the 14th forbids the states from making "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." All of our constitutional protections and rights are part of our privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States. The 2nd amendment is one of those enumerated rights.

Under the SCOTUS decision, the 2nd Amendment has now been acknowledged that its intent is to secure the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. (Only brain dead totalitarians could force themselves to believe otherwise.)

The 14th amendment forbids the states from passing laws abridging that right, or removing that right from individuals without due process of law.

As such, any gun control legislation which infringes on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Laws such as registration (which I oppose personally) would not, I think, be considered an infringement, since I can still exercise my right as long as I let the state know what I have in my gun cabinet. Similarly, a background check would not infringe on the right, since those who would not be able to purchase a firearm after a background check would have had their right removed by due process. But a law which states I cannot have and carry (as in keep AND BEAR) a firearm because I am inside some boundary (city limits, county or state line, etc.) is infringing on my right as a citizen, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The way this decision was handed down, by specifically negating the idea that the 2nd Amendment was aimed at organized state militia members, the implications are huge, and the results will be far, far reaching. (that is until a more liberal court finds they cannot read, so they must interpret.)

As to the claim this decision is judicial activism, it is EXACTLY the opposite of judicial activism. Judicial activism (which does occur, but not at the rate most in both political camps claim it does) happens when a judge (or court of several judges) decides based on what they think is - or 'should be' - included under open clauses as found in the 9th and 10th amendments, or the last clause of article I, section 8.

But this decision has a specific clause to point to: "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
Socrtease said:
Funny though that conservatives like you use the "Times have changed" or "9-11 changed everything" mantra in justifying government intrusions in other areas of our life including listening in to our phone conversations just because one person is calling from over seas. Both the Right and the left in this country are determined to restrict freedoms and to pretend that only one is is so intellectually dishonest that it defies description.
Click to expand...

Socer, that's why George Washington warned us against partisanship. In reality there is no left and there is no right. There is only a system of beliefs we call politics and persons who use this system to obtain power and the people who obtain the material benefits therefrom or those who pay the consequences.

Partisans are those who seek the material benefits of power or are the unwitting dupes of those who do.

When it comes to Freedom in this nation, the political partisans, of either stripe, will be all for freedom and liberty, unless you actually practice them.

What is amazing about the Heller decision, is that it is not in the nature of government, regardless of ideology, to expand our freedoms, it is their nature to limit them.
 
Watermark said:
I thought striking down a law was legislating from the bench? But you say, that if they had let this law stand, it's legislation from the bench?

Am I to understand that "legislate from the bench", to you, basically means any court decision you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Water, you are exactly right. That's exactly what an activist Judge is to Dixie and the wingnuts, Remember how they vilified John Jones the III in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case about Intelligent Design? That was just soooooo laughable.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Hey Dicks, was this judicial activism?
Click to expand...

It was a 4-vote attempt at it! This decision should have been 9-0... 8-1 at worst... I can accept one voice of idiotic dissent on just about anything, but 5-4 over the constitutionality of the 2nd Frickin' Amendment to the Constitution???

The Constitution is very clear what it means by Right to Bear Arms, the Founding Fathers wrote volumes about it, and they were very clear and unambiguous about what they meant. Nowhere is any support for what liberals want to now try to interpret into the Constitution! It's simply a matter of Liberal Activism in the courts, and it's exactly the point we have been trying to make for years.
 
Last edited:
Mottleydude said:
Water, you are exactly right. That's exactly what an activist Judge is to Dixie and the wingnuts, Remember how they vilified John Jones the III in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case about Intelligent Design? That was just soooooo laughable.
Click to expand...

You are as stupid as Waterhead when it comes to this issue. You don't have a clue as to what is going on, you just know which side the liberals take and there you are! Make a goddamn argument for you side if you feel it is right, don't just spew out the typical liberal talking points and try to change subjects!

The 2nd Amendment is clear and unambiguous, the intent of the framers is clear and unambiguous, and there is absolutely no basis for any dissension when it comes to the issue of the 2nd Amendment. NONE!
 
I actually looked outside to see if the world was coming to an end. Dixie and I agree on an issue, the second amendment.

However, up until the 1960's the conservatives on the Court wanted to tell us that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to state police searches. It was only after Mapp v. Ohio where we finally get a decision that says not only does the 4th amendment apply to states but evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment will not be allowed to be used in a case against the defendant. And guess what Dixie, conservatives were the ones there that thought the court was crazy. How could ANYONE think that these words;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

MEAN anything but you have to have a warrant to search. Scalia to this day does not believe in the exclusionary rule. He thinks that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment should still be admitted and then the convict can sue the officer for violating his constitutional rights, they be pulling all the teeth from the 4th amendment and making it a worthless amendment except that AFTER THE FACT a person can sue.

You can go here to see what the CATO institute thinks, not one of your hotbeds of liberalism.

This is an excerpt from that CATO report that is alarming to me.

• Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the SWAT raid on Anthony Diotaiuto, a Florida man shot and killed during an early-morning raid. The man’s bullet-riddled body was found in a bedroom closet. Police found all of an ounce of marijuana, and witnesses say they made no announcement before entering, as required by Florida law (police insist they announced). Diotaiuto’s death is the lead case in the introduction to my recent paper on paramilitary police raids. Gun rights advocates may want to take note: Diotaiuto’s possession of a legal conceal-carry permit was cited as a “major factor” in the police department’s decision to use a SWAT team and forced entry.
Click to expand...
 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Click to expand...

I think if you study the text, you will realize the framers intent, and it wasn't to allow people to avoid prosecution of the law. If it is not reasonable for someone to be searched without warrant, I agree with you, but there are instances where such searches are certainly reasonable and justified. If the search reveals evidence, it is obvious the search was justified, isn't it?
 
Dixie said:
I think if you study the text, you will realize the framers intent, and it wasn't to allow people to avoid prosecution of the law. If it is not reasonable for someone to be searched without warrant, I agree with you, but there are instances where such searches are certainly reasonable and justified. If the search reveals evidence, it is obvious the search was justified, isn't it?
Click to expand...

No Dixie, the end does not justify the means.

And I agree with you concerning the meaning of the wording of the 2nd amendment. But to act as if there is no question is simply to ignore reason.
 
Dixie said:
I think if you study the text, you will realize the framers intent, and it wasn't to allow people to avoid prosecution of the law. If it is not reasonable for someone to be searched without warrant, I agree with you, but there are instances where such searches are certainly reasonable and justified. If the search reveals evidence, it is obvious the search was justified, isn't it?
Click to expand...
There are circumstances, mostly lumped under the heading of "probable cause" in which search and seizure without warrant is justified. But such is NOT justified by results, but rather by circumstances PRIOR to the search. The rule of thumb is if the circumstances would likely have justified a warrant (had there been time to apply for one), then the standard of probable cause is met. If a warrant probably would not have been issued according to the circumstances, then probable cause was not met.

As for the intent of the framers, I am certain you are familiar with the quote "It is better for 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted." That quote came from the same time. It was, as you say, not the intent of the 4th amendment to allow people to avoid prosecution. But the framers knew that allowing some people to avoid prosecution was a potential consequence of protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure. No solution is ever going to be perfect. Knowing this, as with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the preference is for liberty over security.
 
Solitary said:
No Dixie, the end does not justify the means.

And I agree with you concerning the meaning of the wording of the 2nd amendment. But to act as if there is no question is simply to ignore reason.
Click to expand...

I never said "the end justifies the means" I was not talking about the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment either. I was merely pointing out the context of the 4th Amendment, where it indicates "unreasonable" searches are not constitutional, it doesn't say that "reasonable" searches are not allowed.

I am not ignoring reason to point out that a Supreme Court ruling concerning the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, should be unquestionable. There should have been no dissent whatsoever on this issue, it is as clear as a bell what the Constitution says, and to pretend you've interpreted some other meaning, is ridiculous.
 
But such is NOT justified by results, but rather by circumstances PRIOR to the search.
Click to expand...

I have not stated otherwise, I understand the law. I am merely stating the obvious here, if a search (lawful or not) produced evidence, isn't the evidence proof of 'probable cause' in a purely logical sense? Doesn't the evidence found in the search affirm the original suspicion? I know it doesn't legally justify the unlawful search, that is not what I am saying. We must maintain reasonable cause for search and seizure, pursuant to the 4th Amendment, no argument from me on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top