|
Dead Reckoning posted:I guess I can dig up a bunch of people whinging about various Scalia/Alito opinions being creating new law or not following precedent or being predecided for the conservative party or whatever if you really want, or does it not count as complaining about it unless you actually say "judicial activism?" People who complain about "Judicial Activism" are complaining about the very idea of judges creating law. People in this thread complain about specific instances of it when they disagree with it.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
Griswold's majority. Either of the concurrences would be a lot easier to swallow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, given the number of people on the left, including people ITT, who are openly salivating about revisiting Heller and Citizens United among other cases as soon as Hillary can pack the court with liberal justices, acting like this is an issue of conservative double-speak is pretty dishonest. Planning to restrict individual rights via judicial fiat because you've decided that exercising those rights in certain ways is "bad for democracy" is pretty hosed up imo. Both are bad decisions overturning decades if not a century or more of precedent overturning wise democratically enacted laws that any person of any judicial philosophy should feel comfortable with the Supreme Court overturning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Both are bad decisions overturning decades if not a century or more of precedent overturning wise democratically enacted laws that any person of any judicial philosophy should feel comfortable with the Supreme Court overturning. But enough about Loving vs Virginia and Obergefell vs Hodges... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Crossposting from C-SPAM, expect this to get some legs: https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/763115334954053633 The account belongs to a Salon writer who says Trump has made this insinuation before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:GOP isn't the sole villain here. In California for instance, the Democratic Party won 60% of the presidential vote but have something closer to 80% of the house seats. California's districts *are* drawn by an impartial committee. Presidential/downballot ticket splits are pretty routine nowadays: "Clem's been doing good for us for 47 years, why change?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:California's districts *are* drawn by an impartial committee. Presidential/downballot ticket splits are pretty routine nowadays: "Clem's been doing good for us for 47 years, why change?" California's congressional districts are still quite gerrymandered (hence the 80% of seats with 60% of the vote)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:California's districts *are* drawn by an impartial committee. Presidential/downballot ticket splits are pretty routine nowadays: "Clem's been doing good for us for 47 years, why change?" The opposite is true, people are actually less likely to split their ticket, it's one of the signs of the increasing polarization of American politics
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:California's congressional districts are still quite gerrymandered (hence the 80% of seats with 60% of the vote) You can get lopsided results without gerrymandering, though. Imagine if California were uniformly 60% D/40% R. In that scenario, it wouldn’t matter how you drew the districts; you would always end up with Democrats winning all of them. Now obviously California isn’t actually that homogeneous, but you get the idea. Impartial district lines don’t end the imbalance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Both are bad decisions overturning decades if not a century or more of precedent overturning wise democratically enacted laws that any person of any judicial philosophy should feel comfortable with the Supreme Court overturning. Heller was a good decision, and you just need to strike the second instead of trying to weasel around it just because you hate fundamental human rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
I’m all for the Second Amendment. Everyone can keep and bear arms, provided they’re reproductions of arms available in 1791.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’m all for the Second Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Crossposting from C-SPAM, expect this to get some legs: Amanda Marcotte is an idiot and trump didn't really 'insinuate' anything, he practically came out and said it,and did so months ago, repeatedly. It won't get any play because trump merely repeating conspiracy theories from WND doesn't make for as good headlines as trump calling for Hillary's assassination or losing fights with literal babies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:I realize this is a joke, but it seems like a thoroughly dumb joke, given the existence of the First Amendment. 100% sincere, my friend. If you think about it, my interpretation here is quite generous. I could require the reproductions be produced using period‐accurate techniques, or even limit it to authentic antiques. There’s also the “must be a member of a well‐regulated militia angle [read: the National Guard]”. Of course I wouldn’t go there, but for many decades the Court did. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, given the number of people on the left, including people ITT, who are openly salivating about revisiting Heller and Citizens United among other cases as soon as Hillary can pack the court with liberal justices, acting like this is an issue of conservative double-speak is pretty dishonest. Planning to restrict individual rights via judicial fiat because you've decided that exercising those rights in certain ways is "bad for democracy" is pretty hosed up imo. This is how it actually works and has always worked. Pretending that judges don't have ideologies or that presidents are unaware of them is either hopelessly naive or deliberately disingenuous. Heller was the result of 25 years of appointing judges with a certain 2nd amendment ideology that succeeded in overturning previous precedent with a 5-4 ruling. You're just okay with that because you agree with it. My 5-4 decision is sober impartial nonpartisan judges discovering and applying the one true natural law, your 5-4 decision is partisan court-packing that allows your politicians to legislate from the bench. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:100% sincere, my friend. Edit: I guess unless the real joke is "only an impossibly stupid person could believe what I'm saying" in which case I still think it's a dumb joke. twodot fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You can get lopsided results without gerrymandering, though. At best, 50% of the people vote for someone who will not win. Over half of Americans can reasonably claim to be wholly unrepresented in "their" government. That's the wasted vote effect - it makes gerrymandering possible. We can do so much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:You're clearly an idiot, but for those following along consider mechanisms of speech, religion, assembly, and press that only existed after 1791, and whether they are protected by the First Amendment. Counterpoint: the gov’t won’t let me keep and bear nuclear arms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Counterpoint: the gov’t won’t let me keep and bear nuclear arms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Typical GOP tactic: face an uncomfortable question, deflect with personal attacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The referendum creating that impartial committee was written specifically to exclude the congressional races though, because Nancy Pelosi. It also came after the establishment defeated a very similar referendum (by Arnold) which did include the congressional delegation. I had no idea. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Typical GOP tactic: face an uncomfortable question, deflect with personal attacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The referendum creating that impartial committee was written specifically to exclude the congressional races though, because Nancy Pelosi. It also came after the establishment defeated a very similar referendum (by Arnold) which did include the congressional delegation. The Jungle Primary system also heavily discourages multiple challengers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:I just want to be super clear. I totally believe you are an actual moron who shouldn't be engaged with. I gave an example of why that's true, which you completely ignored. I don't believe every question or point demands an answer. If you do believe that, you are behind on your responsibilities. I tried to send my response via spark gap transmitter, but those fascists at the FCC shut me down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:I just want to be super clear. I totally believe you are an actual moron who shouldn't be engaged with. I gave an example of why that's true, which you completely ignored. I don't believe every question or point demands an answer. If you do believe that, you are behind on your responsibilities. Just to be super clear, you're both doing a good job of look like morons here, but at least he seems to be enjoying it. computer parts posted:The Jungle Primary system also heavily discourages multiple challengers. Is the structure of primaries determined by the law, or is that at least something that could be changed by the parties if they so desired?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is the structure of primaries determined by the law, or is that at least something that could be changed by the parties if they so desired? So, no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
I just looked up spark-gap transmitters, so thank you very much for that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:100% sincere, my friend. Not as though this asinine idea hasn't been subjected to legal analysis. quote:PER CURIAM VitalSigns posted:This is how it actually works and has always worked. Pretending that judges don't have ideologies or that presidents are unaware of them is either hopelessly naive or deliberately disingenuous. Heller is good law, and frankly the idea that it was a 25-year conspiracy across multiple administrations with the sole goal of reaffirming the blindingly obvious purpose of the 2nd Amendment is laughable. Especially when you consider that Miller, a case in which I would remind everyone that neither the defendant nor their counsel was able to appear in court, was itself a radical departure from the previous 150 years of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:100% sincere, my friend. Just like freedom of the press only applies if you use a literal printing press!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you're going to dispense with the idea that judges are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law despite their personal political beliefs, and instead go with the idea that Supreme Court nominations are just a once-ever-few-years snap contest where the current occupant of the oval office attempts to get someone on the bench who will crush the legislative agenda of their political opponents under a gavel until the cold specter of death comes for them too, you're really just endorsing the GOP's obstructionist tactics and justifying why they should fight tooth and nail to prevent Hillary from confirming a justice for as long as they can. (Please spare me the "well they wouldn't act in good faith anyway, so why should we do the right thing?" post.) Nah there's no such thing as "neutral arbiter of the law". There are different legal philosophies and all judges have one, there's no godlike perspective outside of the world that discovers eternal divine law with no underlying legal philosophy. Unless by neutral arbiter you're accusing Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, etc of not having any sort of legal philosophy and just ruling because they "hate guns" or "like abortions", is that what you're claiming here? If so, I think you're wrong about them; legal philosophies aside from originalism exist, so I think you'd have quite a bit of work to do to show that their rulings follow no philosophy at all outside of their whims. If not, you're just repeating the usual right-wing double standard. "My politics are right and when the court disagrees the precedent must be overturned so it's cool for Republican presidents to appoint judges who agree with me, your politics are wrong so Democrat presidents need to respect precedent and appoint judges who agree with me." Dead Reckoning posted:Heller is good law, and frankly the idea that it was a 25-year conspiracy across multiple administrations with the sole goal of reaffirming the blindingly obvious purpose of the 2nd Amendment is laughable. Especially when you consider that Miller, a case in which I would remind everyone that neither the defendant nor their counsel was able to appear in court, was itself a radical departure from the previous 150 years of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. Yeah no, it's not a conspiracy, Republicans openly said they would nominate justices who agreed with the NRA on 2nd amendment issues and then they did it, just as they said they'd appoint justices who agree with them on abortion, got Roe v Wade weakened, and almost got it repealed. "Presidents nominate justices whose record tends to agree with them on issues, and promise their constituents the same" is not a conspiracy, it's expected and it is what has actually been happening, explicitly. Like do I have to link you endless examples of Republicans promising to nominate judges who will rule against gun control and abortion? Okay, you think Heller was good law. The dissent disagrees and has a different legal theory than you; they're four of the most respected jurists in the country (including one Reagan appointee). Hillary agrees with the dissent, so she is obviously going to appoint justices with legal theories she agrees with. She has no duty to nominate justices who agree with you, any more than you would have said pre-Heller that Bush has a duty to appoint justices who will uphold Miller. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, you think Heller was good law. The dissent disagrees and has a different legal theory than you; they're four of the most respected jurists in the country (including one Reagan appointee). Hillary agrees with the dissent, so she is obviously going to appoint justices with legal theories she agrees with. She has no duty to nominate justices who agree with you, any more than you would have said pre-Heller that Bush has a duty to appoint justices who will uphold Miller. I highlighted your problem here. Of course the dissent disagrees with the majority, but that doesn't change a drat thing about it's legal status. DC's law was dumb and was struck down appropriately. Heller is good law and makes perfect sense. Note the issue with the DC law was twofold - one that the city could arbitrarily restrict someone's access to a readily available firearm at the time even in the home and that the weapon had to be disassembled or have a trigger lock on it at all times even in the home. I personally would love to see guns out of people's hands myself, but I'm not going to put on blinders and act like Heller is something crazy. Also miller was about sawed off shotguns where DCs law was essentially a blanket handgun ban. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Well of course the majority's opinion is the one with legal status. If the next judge nominated to the court agrees with the dissent in Heller or CU, then this will likely change. That's cool if you agree with those rulings but not all judges do (the 4 dissents are obvious evidence of this), if the next president prefers a judge with a judicial philosophy similar to the dissenters then it's not some scandal if she nominates one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
The court isn't going to allow a blanket handgun ban without changing the second amendment. The dissent talks about the legislative ability to limit some firearms and is absolutely correct, but a blanket handgun ban including inside one's own home is never going to pass muster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
That's not VitalSigns argument though. His point is that, if the liberals could get five justices on the bench who would reinstate DC's handgun ban, then this would be a good and just thing to do, because the constitution is what the court says it is, and supreme court justices are basically high-stakes senators with lifetime appointments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Which is dumb as well. There have been threats of court stacking before and there has been definitely some partisan hackery on behalf of the court (CU), but the entire point of being a judge is to put aside personal bias and rule according to what the law says not what they feel. Because of the nature of our government, the supreme court does end up making law, but it is supposed to be and for the most part does stay insulated from the political process. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
I don't see how it's court-stacking for a liberal to appoint justices they agree with any more than it's court-stacking when conservatives do it. Could either one of you define for me what a "neutral arbiter of the law" is? Is it just a judge who rules according to a consistent philosophy without making exceptions for his personal partisan opinions? Because that could describe good judges with any legal philosophy and it's expected that a president picking among judges with different philosophies will choose one he agrees with (and I don't know how you'd enforce a mechanism to stop that, a Fairness Doctrine for scotus judges?) Or does a "neutral arbiter of law" mean something else to you (like "agrees with textualism" or similar)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Platystemon is being dumb, but I've always been curious. What *is* the case history for defining the line between guns being allowable but missiles not? What is the criteria used?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Heller is good law and makes perfect sense. What part of Heller involves a well-regulated militia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:Platystemon is being dumb, but I've always been curious. What *is* the case history for defining the line between guns being allowable but missiles not? What is the criteria used? The general principle reaffirmed in Heller is that "arms" generally refers to "small arms," the weapons of an individual soldier. This is in contrast with things like artillery, landmines, tanks, nerve gas, and nuclear weapons, which generally fall outside the definition. Weapons like crew-served machine guns, mortars, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers blur the line. More practically, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) defines a destructive device as: quote:(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device. All that said, the founders pretty clearly expected that private citizens would be able to purchase warships and cannon (one doesn't give letters of marque and reprisal to a national navy after all) most likely on the basis that, if you were the sort of person who could afford such things, you were the right sort of person to have them. ErIog posted:What part of Heller involves a well-regulated militia?  The right is reserved to the people, not the militia.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
No gunchat please. Please no gunchat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:17
|
|