Sotomeyer Racist Against Ninjas
- Thread starter ib1yysguy
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
she's being completely obtuse about the 2nd Amendment. the incorporation issue at this point is still irrelevant.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no kidding....better outlaw cars as well, they kill more people than ninja turtles with nunchucks....and people who kill people with guns....
SmarterthanYou
rebel
2nd doesn't apply to the states if you choose to continue with the dred scott era. I thought she was above that.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so we are not bound by any case from that era?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
going by the points made by Scalia in Heller, it would seem that he's invalidating cruikshank and presser, so I'd say no....they are not bound by precedent on the 2nd anymore.
The Second Amendment does not apply to the states if you follow binding supreme court precedent, which is what courts of appeals judges are supposed to do. Unless, of course, you support "judicial activism."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
up until Heller, the 2nd had not been incorporated and following that precedent would be expected. With the Heller decision, Scalia makes specific reference to incorporation stating that since it wasn't brought up, it didn't need to be considered. This can be taken two ways.
1) that the USSC will decide it at a later case, or
2) leaving the door open for circuit/district courts to make that determination on a case, much like the Miller decision was handled through the circuits....wrongly of course, but it was done.
note that i'm not disqualifying her for following precedent, but the implication she makes that somehow nunchukas are more deadly and dangerous than handguns, therefore NY can ban possession of them.
No, Scalia's reference to incorporation stating that since it wasn't an issue it would not be considered can only be construed one way: whatever the Supreme Court had previously decided remains the law and is binding on the lower courts.
And no, she's not making the implication that nunchucks are more deadly and dangerous than handguns, therefore NY can ban possession of them. Instead, it seems from her statement (I've not read the opinion) that she ruled that because the Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the states, the Court's role in reviewing a challenge to the nunchuck ban is to determine if there is a rational basis for the legislature's action.
She concluded (correctly in my view) that because nunchucks are dangerous weapons with no separate beneficial purpose (unlike baseball bats which are used to play baseball) the state did have a rational basis for its action. In making this judgment she again was not being a judicial activist and instead deferred to the judgment of the legislature.
Well, that would be true if there weren't things like Martial Arts tournaments where kids across the land compete against each other in weapons forms.
The fact is that there is other uses for the nunchuks than to spin them randomly around trying to harm the nearby strangers, just like there are with baseball bats.
Assuming you are right, who cares? And aren't you really conceding the point that nunchuks are weapons?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're wrong....again.
half wrong here. she did indeed make that implication and THEN fell back on her 'precedent' statement to keep with the rational basis reasoning.
Of course they are weapons nobody argued that they weren't, that's just another disingenuous straw man. However that is not the sole use, it was stated that there was "no other" valid use. I would argue that martial arts training is beneficial to children, to their parents, is good exercise and would warrant an exception.
And the kids who compete would care, just like the kids playing baseball. There is nothing more deadly about nunchucks that is not also a property of the baseball bat. Why that weapon and not the quarter staff? The staff is a far more effective weapon with a longer reach, but then you can grab a broom and do that kind of damage, or a mop handle.
I don't think so. It's not for the circuit courts to decide that the supreme court got something wrong, that's the supreme court's job. Go check out the opinion by Easterbrook and Posner (two of the more revered conservative appellate court judges) agreeing with Sotomayor if you don't believe me.
The implication doesn't really matter. What matters is that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated and that, as a result, the appropriate standard of review is rational basis. Applying rational basis reasoning, it was not her job to second-guess the legislature in banning nunchucks.
Again, Sotomayor declined to be an "activist judge" in two respects: (1) she followed binding supreme court precedent with respect to incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and (2) she refused to second-guess the legislature's determination regarding whether nunchucks should be banned.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yeah, i've read the article by those two bozos and they have no business being on the bench after writing that bullshit.
stare decisis was certainly one of her choices, not her only choice. either would not have been 'activism'.
So learning to use a weapons is a separate valid use from the weapon being used as a weapon? Odd.
And as for why nunchucks and not the quarter staff, ask the NY legislature. They're the ones that banned it. Sotomayor's job was to determine whether there was a rational basis for the ban, not whether the legislature ought to have banned some other weapons too.
I think it's funny how much people like you want judicial activism when it suits your political objectives yet decry it when it doesn't.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
once the supreme court found it to be an individual right, something that the supreme court had NEVER ruled on before, left the whole realm open to each circuit which is why we ended up with a split already on whether the 2nd is applicable against the states or not.
Learning to compete against others in a different use than the attempt to injure somebody with the weapon, yes. Just like learning to play baseball makes what is otherwise a far more deadly weapon "useful".
This is solely cosmetic, there are better weapons, more deadly ones, that are not being banned solely because these are flashy. It makes no sense to ban these, but not a staff, to ban these but not ban carrying a simple stick.
There is no real rational basis, this weapon is no more deadly than using a broom handle to hit somebody, or grabbing a bicycle lock. In fact people who own nunchucks usually are people who are learning in a class environment and who also learn things like control and discipline, in most cases it is beneficial rather than a danger to society.
And I'm not arguing about her ruling. I'm arguing against silly irrational laws whichever the source.
And I think it is funny how much you personally attempt to attack me by using inane phrases like, "People like you". When you generalize that way you are almost always off target when dealing with an individual.