|
"Did a seatbelt save the guy whose car was pulverized against the median by a semi? No. Therefore, seatbelts are completely pointless."
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
"Except abortion! Those laws against abortion are cool and good, and work great. More of those please."
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
I'd have more respect (or less disgust) for his opinion if he just said "the state's interest in preventing gun violence is not really relevant here because carrying guns outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right, period". This pissy sniping about how CCW bans wouldn't have stopped Buffalo is just attacking for the sake of attacking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I'd have less of a problem (only slightly so but still) if these people were at least consistent with their insane positions. You can't say money is speech and then say boycotts aren't protected speech that's totally incoherent. These two things were said by different people. The "boycotts aren't protected speech" decision came from a lower court judge, not the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:These two things were said by different people. The "boycotts aren't protected speech" decision came from a lower court judge, not the Supreme Court. I know but I'm sure that Trump judge agrees money is speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I'd have more respect (or less disgust) for his opinion if he just said "the state's interest in preventing gun violence is not really relevant here because carrying guns outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right, period". This pissy sniping about how CCW bans wouldn't have stopped Buffalo is just attacking for the sake of attacking. The main opinion is so sweeping already that his concurrence doesn't really have to add anything beyond petty sniping. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1539983073806270471 What sticks out about that ruling isn't just that it ruled against gun control, but that they let Thomas wrote the opinion and enshrine his radical originalism into precedent. He's basically ruled that we can't regulate guns any more than the Founding Fathers would have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What sticks out about that ruling isn't just that it ruled against gun control, but that they let Thomas wrote the opinion and enshrine his radical originalism into precedent. He's basically ruled that we can't regulate guns any more than the Founding Fathers would have. Except you still have to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part, because that was deleted by the court in 2008 and precedent is sacrosanct
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Look turns out it *is* a suicide pact
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I'd have more respect (or less disgust) for his opinion if he just said "the state's interest in preventing gun violence is not really relevant here because carrying guns outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right, period". This pissy sniping about how CCW bans wouldn't have stopped Buffalo is just attacking for the sake of attacking. Alito loves petty sniping. Mass shootings seem to mainly be done with rifles. This law is about concealed carry of handguns which I would assume are intended more to prevent muggings and similar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:Why bother having any laws at all if people are just going to break them anyway This isn't what Justice Alito is saying-- he's saying the law in question doesn't have anything to do with the mass shootings (shooters were using rifles and weren't carrying concealed, etc, so they weren't in violation of this law at all), so they're not relevant to this case. He's still a fuckhead for other reasons, but it's accurate as far as it goes. Rigel posted:I'd have more respect (or less disgust) for his opinion if he just said "the state's interest in preventing gun violence is not really relevant here because carrying guns outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right, period". This pissy sniping about how CCW bans wouldn't have stopped Buffalo is just attacking for the sake of attacking. He's responding to what's written in the dissent, not just sniping for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Pretty hard not to despair https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1539982278037831680?s=21&t=gfmjWqO-dg2V-flr1lg59Q
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The main opinion is so sweeping already that his concurrence doesn't really have to add anything beyond petty sniping. If Thomas truly was going to do radical originalism he would’ve ruled that the 2nd amendment didn’t apply to states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I'd have more respect (or less disgust) for his opinion if he just said "the state's interest in preventing gun violence is not really relevant here because carrying guns outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right, period". This pissy sniping about how CCW bans wouldn't have stopped Buffalo is just attacking for the sake of attacking. I mean this is what happens when we're governed by people whose professional qualifications amount to "watches Fox a lot". LeeMajors posted:Pretty hard not to despair I try to put myself in the mindset that while this experiment in democracy has failed, most humans throughout history have lived under some form of oligarchy so we're in good company. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:This isn't what Justice Alito is saying-- he's saying the law in question doesn't have anything to do with the mass shootings (shooters were using rifles and weren't carrying concealed, etc, so they weren't in violation of this law at all), so they're not relevant to this case. He's still a fuckhead for other reasons, but it's accurate as far as it goes. Right, on legal grounds this is decided correctly. The dissenting liberal judges probably even know it too, hence talking about gun death stats on suicide, mass shootings etc, when this case was about CCW, not gun ownership. Alito actually rightfully calls it out. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Right, on legal grounds this is decided correctly. The dissenting liberal judges probably even know it too, hence talking about gun death stats on suicide, mass shootings etc, when this case was about CCW, not gun ownership. Alito actually rightfully calls it out. Well this case, even though it's about CCW, is about to create binding precedent that says it doesn't matter if we are having daily mass murders - we cannot outlaw Murder Tools if there was not a historical tradition of banning them. Seems like a fine time to raise an argument about mass murders in the dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Devor posted:Well this case, even though it's about CCW, is about to create binding precedent that says it doesn't matter if we are having daily mass murders - we cannot outlaw Murder Tools if there was not a historical tradition of banning them. Seems like a fine time to raise an argument about mass murders in the dissent. I'd worry more about setting precedent if I thought that the Republicans cared about it. This sort of thing will not change the outcome of any policy decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Pretty hard not to despair Granted, that's only two elections (GWB 1st term and Trump), but the timing of those elections had some pretty juicy consequences. I agree with the basic idea, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:Granted, that's only two elections (GWB 1st term and Trump), but the timing of those elections had some pretty juicy consequences. I agree with the basic idea, though. Also unfortunate that Marshall got sick when he did otherwise he would've retired under Clinton and we'd been spared Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:Granted, that's only two elections (GWB 1st term and Trump), but the timing of those elections had some pretty juicy consequences. I agree with the basic idea, though. Elections where the Dem won the electoral college still count as "the GOP lost the popular vote". The point is that they've only had a legitimate mandate to govern for 8 years out of the past 34 and still control 2/3 of SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Elections where the Dem won the electoral college still count as "the GOP lost the popular vote". The point is that they've only had a legitimate mandate to govern for 8 years out of the past 34 and still control 2/3 of SCOTUS If only someone had warned us about this the last time there was an opportunity to avoid it in 2016. I guess it turns out that elections have consequences? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
SCOTUS: Precedent doesn't matter, who cares what someone in the past thought the law should be! Also all rulings only care about "history and tradition" and if it goes against what someone in the past thought the law should be it's unconstitutional
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Devor posted:Well this case, even though it's about CCW, is about to create binding precedent that says it doesn't matter if we are having daily mass murders - we cannot outlaw Murder Tools if there was not a historical tradition of banning them. Seems like a fine time to raise an argument about mass murders in the dissent. Right and that's entirely accurate. If something is a constitutional right, a state cannot outlaw it. Legislation is the correct response to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Right and that's entirely accurate. If something is a constitutional right, a state cannot outlaw it. Legislation is the correct response to that. I have bad news about constitutional rights and legislation Edit: Bad news in this context, not always bad in the context of rights
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Right, on legal grounds this is decided correctly. The dissenting liberal judges probably even know it too, hence talking about gun death stats on suicide, mass shootings etc, when this case was about CCW, not gun ownership. Alito actually rightfully calls it out. Breyer makes clear in the dissent that he believes means-end scrutiny is correct and the harms of gun violence and the state interest in preventing them are important things to consider when balancing those interests. He cites examples where the court does this in other areas (1st amendment, for example). All of section IIIA of the dissent. You can say you disagree with this reasoning, sure absolutely. But the credulous "he's objectively wrong and just wasting paper on emotional arguments" stuff is crap. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Right, on legal grounds this is decided correctly. The dissenting liberal judges probably even know it too, hence talking about gun death stats on suicide, mass shootings etc, when this case was about CCW, not gun ownership. Alito actually rightfully calls it out. "Alito is right" is probably the point when you should consider you have an incorrect view on how a law was decided.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Does this affect reciprocity at all? Does New York need to honor a Mississippi permit now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:If only someone had warned us about this the last time there was an opportunity to avoid it in 2016. I guess it turns out that elections have consequences? Yeah, turns out electing Republicans has serious short term consequences and electing Democrats delivers serious long term consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Right and that's entirely accurate. If something is a constitutional right, a state cannot outlaw it. Legislation is the correct response to that. The correct response to a constitutionality issue is an amendment. Good luck with that
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I'd worry more about setting precedent if I thought that the Republicans cared about it. This sort of thing will not change the outcome of any policy decision. The New York law this overturned had been in place for over a century. Precedent is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Piell posted:SCOTUS: Precedent doesn't matter, who cares what someone in the past thought the law should be! Also all rulings only care about "history and tradition" and if it goes against what someone in the past thought the law should be it's unconstitutional However, if by some miracle, there is a 5-4 progressive SCOTUS in 20 years who want to re-instate abortion and gay marriage and enforcement ability of government institutions, I guarantee the regressives on the court would complain about them ignoring precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Of course. Don't forget being 'activist judges' who 'legislate from the bench.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
It's all calvinball at this point, with the only consistent rule being "reactionary christians win"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:Breyer makes clear in the dissent that he believes means-end scrutiny is correct and the harms of gun violence and the state interest in preventing them are important things to consider when balancing those interests. He cites examples where the court does this in other areas (1st amendment, for example). All of section IIIA of the dissent. The state can have an interest against constitutional rights, I don't disagree with that, but a citizen having to have a 'special need' to be allowed to have a constitutional right is ridiculous and entirely inconsistent with how rights are supposed to work. The main issue in this case is whether everyone has rights or just the select people the state says are allowed to have rights. i.e. the good ol boys club, rich and well connected people. haveblue posted:The correct response to a constitutionality issue is an amendment. Good luck with that Yeah it may suck but that's how the country works. Guns are part of the constitution, and the constitution cant be changed easily, for good reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Yeah it may suck but that's how the country works. Guns are part of the constitution, and the constitution cant be changed easily, for good reasons. Guns are in the constitution? Oh word? Where are they mentioned?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Alito chiding Breyer for bringing up mass shootings is hilarious. I wonder if he has the same problem with Thomas recounting the gory details of every crime in his opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can have an interest against constitutional rights, I don't disagree with that, but a citizen having to have a 'special need' to be allowed to have a constitutional right is ridiculous and entirely inconsistent with how rights are supposed to work. The main issue in this case is whether everyone has rights or just the select people the state says are allowed to have rights. i.e. the good ol boys club, rich and well connected people. There's no constitutional right to concealed carry, and no one would have argued otherwise prior to the NRA revising 2A history over the last 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can have an interest against constitutional rights, I don't disagree with that, but a citizen having to have a 'special need' to be allowed to have a constitutional right is ridiculous and entirely inconsistent with how rights are supposed to work. The main issue in this case is whether everyone has rights or just the select people the state says are allowed to have rights. i.e. the good ol boys club, rich and well connected people. I understand and disagree with this but the main point to make is that this case isn't just about CCW. It's about the types of restrictions government can place on gun ownership and use generally and which tests should be used to determine whether those restrictions are valid. CCW is the context of this particular case, but the whole point here is to abstract out some principles. That's why the stats Breyer is quoting are germane to his argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can have an interest against constitutional rights, I don't disagree with that, but a citizen having to have a 'special need' to be allowed to have a constitutional right is ridiculous and entirely inconsistent with how rights are supposed to work. The main issue in this case is whether everyone has rights or just the select people the state says are allowed to have rights. i.e. the good ol boys club, rich and well connected people. What good reasons are those at this point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Guns are in the constitution? Oh word? Where are they mentioned? Amendment II
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Originalism lol https://twitter.com/MarkFrassetto/status/1539996546514784256?s=20&t=dDUlsu9f1gS9h7TA4PdJng
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:10
|
|