Breyer recommends term limits for Supreme Court.

SmarterthanYou said:
again, what did the framers mean by regulated? they meant well equipped and trained. their own writings bear this out. they wanted to ensure that their new government would never be able to tyrannize them because they would be able to effectively resist.
Click to expand...

They had just fought one of the longest wars ever against the strongest military in the world and their own government, partly because that government wanted to disarm them. The idea that they just wanted folks in the military to be armed is absolutely absurd. I'm always astounded that they imagine and pretend this hard to believe that "the people" this time didn't mean what "the people" meant every other time it was used in the constitution...

If you want it to be constitutional to take my guns, you are going to have to pass an amendment to get it done, and I believe you will never have the votes to do it.
 
It's totally meaningless now.

The government doesn't call people up to military service and expect them to bring their own firearms.

If the founders had one functioning brain between them,
they'd have said that personal ownership of firearms was a protected albeit limited right
and not even brought up the superfluous subject of militias.

Now all the crackers think that they have the right to overthrow a properly elected government.

I think that the writers of our Constitution are the most overpraised figures in the entire history of our republic.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
We already know that doesn't matter to conservatives. They bitched about Obama trying to appoint a judge in an election year, then had Trump do it.
Click to expand...

YOU can thank scumbucket Harry Reid for using the "nuclear option". Without Reid, McConnell would have been forced to let Garland become a Justice, stupid. Fucking democrat nazis. :palm:
 
Damocles said:
They had just fought one of the longest wars ever against the strongest military in the world and their own government, partly because that government wanted to disarm them. The idea that they just wanted folks in the military to be armed is absolutely absurd. I'm always astounded that they imagine and pretend this hard to believe that "the people" this time didn't mean what "the people" meant every other time it was used in the constitution...

If you want it to be constitutional to take my guns, you are going to have to pass an amendment to get it done, and I believe you will never have the votes to do it.
Click to expand...

If you want to go there, how does “well regulated” equate with everyone having a gun?

Point being, outside of partisan interpretations, no one knows what the Founders meant by the prefatory clause, no SCOTUS has been able to define it, Scalia knew this, which is why he felt they could skip over the clause. Originalism is absurd, no one, no historian nor jurist, can definitively define what the Founders were thinking two hundred plus years ago

And, a fact many on the right don’t understand, no right is absolute, never has been, never will be, all rights are based on reason, not desire
 
Bigdog said:
YOU can thank scumbucket Harry Reid for using the "nuclear option". Without Reid, McConnell would have been forced to let Garland become a Justice, stupid. Fucking democrat nazis. :palm:
Click to expand...

Wrong again, Reid purposely did not make confirmation to the SCOTUS a majority vote, he could have, but did not, that was all Mitch’s due, and Reid had zero to do with the Garland nomination, again, all Mitch, in fact Mitch’s hypocrisy is totally visible, claimed a nomination couldn’t be done in an election year and then went ahead and railroaded one thru the month before the election
 
archives said:
If you want to go there, how does “well regulated” equate with everyone having a gun?

Point being, outside of partisan interpretations, no one knows what the Founders meant by the prefatory clause, no SCOTUS has been able to define it, Scalia knew this, which is why he felt they could skip over the clause. Originalism is absurd, no one, no historian nor jurist, can definitively define what the Founders were thinking two hundred plus years ago

And, a fact many on the right don’t understand, no right is absolute, never has been, never will be, all rights are based on reason, not desire
Click to expand...

Breyer is a critic of originalism. Justices cannot be expected to be historians searching though documents for what ever section of the constitution means.
 
archives said:
Wrong again, Reid purposely did not make confirmation to the SCOTUS a majority vote, he could have, but did not, that was all Mitch’s due, and Reid had zero to do with the Garland nomination, again, all Mitch, in fact Mitch’s hypocrisy is totally visible, claimed a nomination couldn’t be done in an election year and then went ahead and railroaded one thru the month before the election
Click to expand...

Wrong, Reid made the Nuclear Option normal.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You reap what you sow, Nazi.
 
archives said:
If you want to go there, how does “well regulated” equate with everyone having a gun?

Point being, outside of partisan interpretations, no one knows what the Founders meant by the prefatory clause, no SCOTUS has been able to define it, Scalia knew this, which is why he felt they could skip over the clause. Originalism is absurd, no one, no historian nor jurist, can definitively define what the Founders were thinking two hundred plus years ago

And, a fact many on the right don’t understand, no right is absolute, never has been, never will be, all rights are based on reason, not desire
Click to expand...

EVERYONE with rational and logical thinking knows what they meant by the prefatory clause because it is written about numerous times before, during, and after ratification. Those who do NOT know that are simply trying to ignore or obfuscate the intent because of their own irrational fears.

and your bullshit about rights based on reason, not desire, is pure cap. people have the absolute right to defend their lives and that's not based on reason, but on desire.
 
Bigdog said:
Wrong, Reid made the Nuclear Option normal.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You reap what you sow, Nazi.
Click to expand...

Biden first proposed no SCOTUS nominees hearings in Senate during an election year. They even call it the Biden rule.
 
Last edited:
BartenderElite said:
I don't think they anticipated it would become the political/partisan body that it is.
Click to expand...

And that the Republicans would trigger a race to put more junior Judges, because they are young, on the bench, which has triggered the Dems to do the same.

In the past Judges would be in their 60's or older when getting on the SC, with lifespan expectations being in the 70's, generally. We will soon see 40 and then 30 year olds put on the SC in a race to control the seat for decades.

So yes Term limits are needed, due to that.
 
ExpressLane said:
Biden first proposed no SCOTUS nominees hearings in Senate during an election year. They even call it the Biden rule.
Click to expand...

Exactly :thup:

"Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics
Feb 22, 2016 — Biden Jr. argued that President George Bush should delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, until the presidential election was ..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top