Supreme Court says Illinois may ban sale of rapid-fire assault weapons for now

archives said:
Didn’t, as I said, understanding, and common sense
Click to expand...

Ok I'm trying to treat you as if you are an adult but if you aren't a lawyer and it's not your job to interpret the constitution, with all due respect could you offer a reason I should listen to you? If it's your opinion you want to share that's great but it's not superior to anyone elses and it's definitely not anywhere near as relevant as the opinion of those charged with actually interpreting the constitution.
 
Yakuda said:
I will ask you AGAIN do you think your understanding of the constitution comports with the understanding of those who are actually charged with interpreting the constitution?
Click to expand...

What makes you think they do? Most Judges are just lawyers with political connections, and there certainly aren’t any Holmes, Hughes, Brandeis, or Black on this Court, in fact, thanks to Mitch, the last three are straight political appointees
 
Yakuda said:
Ok I'm trying to treat you as if you are an adult but if you aren't a lawyer and it's not your job to interpret the constitution, with all due respect could you offer a reason I should listen to you? If it's your opinion you want to share that's great but it's not superior to anyone elses and it's definitely not anywhere near as relevant as the opinion of those charged with actually interpreting the constitution.
Click to expand...

So only the only the auto mechanic knows anything about your cars? Every painter understands fine art? Only a Michelin chef can cook?

Called education and common sense, you think corporations are real people? That Thomas’s logic that even public safety can’t ever interfere with individual rights makes sense? That race is no longer ever a weighting influence on political decisions? All some of this Court’s decisions
 
archives said:
What makes you think they do? Most Judges are just lawyers with political connections, and there certainly aren’t any Holmes, Hughes, Brandeis, or Black on this Court, in fact, thanks to Mitch, the last three are straight political appointees
Click to expand...

They do what? Nice try with the Mitch accusation but that's a swing and a miss. The job got political when leftists (at that time we called them liberals) decided the nominees opinions on abortion was a litmus test for confirmation.

Behind that regardless of the circumstances the only opinions that matter regarding the constitution are the 9 people on the SC.
 
archives said:
So only the only the auto mechanic knows anything about your cars? Every painter understands fine art? Only a Michelin chef can cook?

Called education and common sense, you think corporations are real people? That Thomas’s logic that even public safety can’t ever interfere with individual rights makes sense? That race is no longer ever a weighting influence on political decisions? All some of this Court’s decisions
Click to expand...

You can read cant you? I said if you want to share your opinion, fine but it's not more valuable than anyone elses and definitely not more so than the justices.

They have interests like real people and are run by real people.

It makes perfect sense given that leftists are all too eager to claim "public safety" for stripping people of their individual rights. Covid death stabs come to mind.

Race no longer is except to race hustlers.
 
Yakuda said:
They do what? Nice try with the Mitch accusation but that's a swing and a miss. The job got political when leftists (at that time we called them liberals) decided the nominees opinions on abortion was a litmus test for confirmation.

Behind that regardless of the circumstances the only opinions that matter regarding the constitution are the 9 people on the SC.
Click to expand...

Wrong, that supposed test meant nothing, the last three flat out lied showing it had no consequences

And it was Mitch who insured the Court would be political, when he refused Garland even a hearing, thereby breaking a historical precedent, and went even further by making appointment just a majority vote it insured the Court was full of ideologues pushing their own political agenda
 
Yakuda said:
You can read cant you? I said if you want to share your opinion, fine but it's not more valuable than anyone elses and definitely not more so than the justices.

They have interests like real people and are run by real people.

It makes perfect sense given that leftists are all too eager to claim "public safety" for stripping people of their individual rights. Covid death stabs come to mind.

Race no longer is except to race hustlers.
Click to expand...

It shouldn’t be, but as this Court has shown, it is, they are not deciding from the Constitution, but rather from their own political ideology, which makes them just another group of political hacks
 
archives said:
Wrong, that supposed test meant nothing, the last three flat out lied showing it had no consequences

And it was Mitch who insured the Court would be political, when he refused Garland even a hearing, thereby breaking a historical precedent, and went even further by making appointment just a majority vote it insured the Court was full of ideologues pushing their own political agenda
Click to expand...

That was the only thing that mattered to you shit heads. Stfu
 
archives said:
It shouldn’t be, but as this Court has shown, it is, they are not deciding from the Constitution, but rather from their own political ideology, which makes them just another group of political hacks
Click to expand...

tell us you don't understand the constitution without telling us you don't know the constitution. ^^^^^^^^^
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you have not done that. I would remember them.

there is a long history of court cases supporting and affirming individual rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ited_States#United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious you didn’t read your own source, it is anything but a “long history.” The two cases back to back listed prior to the 20th Century were decided at the time when the Court that gave America Plessy vs Ferguson, and the only other case in 1939 confirmed the Second Amendment wasn’t absolute. In addition, none of that reflects the numerous times the Court refused to even hear a case involving the Amendment as with NY’s Sullivan Law

The rest of the listed cases all involve the Roberts Court, particularly Scalia, who with his whacky “Originalism” facade, ignored all precedented law, and decided to rewrite over two hundred years of history. But even Scalia admitted the Amendment was not absolute:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIADISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008 ”
 
Yakuda said:
That was the only thing that mattered to you shit heads. Stfu
Click to expand...

Wrong again, if it mattered, there would have been consequences, when the first nominee lied, the next wouldn’t have been approved, remember, that was before Mitch changed the rules and sixty votes were required
 
archives said:
Wrong again, if it mattered, there would have been consequences, when the first nominee lied, the next wouldn’t have been approved, remember, that was before Mitch changed the rules and sixty votes were required
Click to expand...

Leftists demanded nominees be pro choice. Stfu
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Banning further sales of assault weapons is a very insufficient measure.
The existing ones should be confiscated with Draconian consequences imposed for failure to cooperate.

The tax payers would unfortunately have to bear the burden of funding at least some monetary compensation
but that's our own fault for allowing the distribution of those weapons in the first place.
Click to expand...

Some? Try full value of the weapon and ammunition confiscated. That's required by law. The cost could be more than the so-called "reparations" California wants to hand out. It could easily reach over a trillion nationally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top