More SCOTUS news.

[pecksniff]

It used to be like that n the states.

No, it wasn't. Even in the 19th Century, SCOTUS decisions were often controversial -- see Dred Scott. For that matter, see Marbury v. Madison.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

In the UK virtually no one knows or cares who is on our supreme court. They are nominated by the government but usually with agreement by the opposition because they are seen as qualified and experienced lawyers, not political appointments.

They decide on the law, not on politics. Their decisions are rarely controversial. The decision on how Brexit needed to be implemented by the UK parliament was the only recent major issue that aroused interest and that was a non-event only setting out how it had to be done, not whether it should be done.

Pretty much the same here Ogg, I know the names of two of current Justices, who sit on the Canadian SC and I bet know that, I'd rate as way above average knowledge for a Canadian.

 

[icanhelp1]

No, it wasn't. Even in the 19th Century, SCOTUS decisions were often controversial -- see Dred Scott. For that matter, see Marbury v. Madison.

Most people didn't even know who the justices were back in the day.

 

[pecksniff]

Most people didn't even know who the justices were back in the day.

Makes no difference, they still took note of the decisions.

 

[icanhelp1]

Makes no difference, they still took note of the decisions.

Who's they exactly? The supreme court started getting notoriety when the democrats started shiting all over the confirmation hearings.

 

[Chobham]

More SCOTUS news!!!! They are all partisan hacks, like the rest of the partisan hacks who run this country.

What constitutes a 'Partisan Hack?'

I'll tell you what constitutes a 'Partisan Hack' in my opinion. Any justice, no matter by whom nominated or party affiliation, that believes the Constitution is a 'living document' that can be interpreted to fit any temporal exigency. The Constitution is written in plain English and it says what it says. If you don't like what it says the means and methods to amend it are contained in Article V.

 

[RachelWalsh]

I don't believe what you Republicans are doing and it isn't better than the Democrats.

 

[pecksniff]

Who's they exactly? The supreme court started getting notoriety when the democrats started shiting all over the confirmation hearings.

No, the Supreme Court started getting notoriety well before Dred Scott. "They" is the general public, or at least the politically interested portion of it.

 

[pecksniff]

What constitutes a 'Partisan Hack?'

I'll tell you what constitutes a 'Partisan Hack' in my opinion. Any justice, no matter by whom nominated or party affiliation, that believes the Constitution is a 'living document' that can be interpreted to fit any temporal exigency. The Constitution is written in plain English and it says what it says. If you don't like what it says the means and methods to amend it are contained in Article V.

All "originalism" or "strict constructionism" is merely ventriloquism in a cemetery.

 

[Chobham]

^^^Written by a 'Partisan Hack.'

 

[pecksniff]

^^^Written by a 'Partisan Hack.'

That's as may be, but I'm not wrong.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

I'll tell you what constitutes a 'Partisan Hack' in my opinion. Any justice, no matter by whom nominated or party affiliation, that believes the Constitution is a 'living document' that can be interpreted to fit any temporal exigency. The Constitution is written in plain English and it says what it says. If you don't like what it says the means and methods to amend it are contained in Article V.

In that case, you should believe that so-called "conservative" justices are the biggest hacks out there. You don't get to pretend that gun control is literally the only thing that justices rule on. They also suffer additional deficiencies - like really, really, desperately wanting to pretend that the 14th Amendment wasn't clearly intended to be a massive smackdown of state's powers. Seriously, they're the worst of all possible worlds. They haven't met a theory of constitutional interpretation that they're not willing to distort, lie about, and then toss aside the minute it becomes inconvenient.

Even the Heller case blew past your definition of hackery into straight-up mind-boggling tyranny - and it was authored by no other than Scalia. Heller can be glibly reduced down to two major parts:

Part 1: Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment says what it says, and means what it says.
Part 2: ...but who cares about that anyway? INFRINGE AWAY!... but only if SCOTUS says it's okay on a case-by-case basis.

Gotta make sure enough gun control exists to keep the poors/browns down and the rich calm, after all.

 

[pecksniff]

If guns are outlawed, how will we shoot the capitalists?

See Redneck Revolt.

 

[Chobham]

In that case, you should believe that so-called "conservative" justices are the biggest hacks out there. You don't get to pretend that gun control is literally the only thing that justices rule on. They also suffer additional deficiencies - like really, really, desperately wanting to pretend that the 14th Amendment wasn't clearly intended to be a massive smackdown of state's powers. Seriously, they're the worst of all possible worlds. They haven't met a theory of constitutional interpretation that they're not willing to distort, lie about, and then toss aside the minute it becomes inconvenient.

Even the Heller case blew past your definition of hackery into straight-up mind-boggling tyranny - and it was authored by no other than Scalia. Heller can be glibly reduced down to two major parts:

Part 1: Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment says what it says, and means what it says.
Part 2: ...but who cares about that anyway? INFRINGE AWAY!... but only if SCOTUS says it's okay on a case-by-case basis.

Gotta make sure enough gun control exists to keep the poors/browns down and the rich calm, after all.

So the 2nd is racially biased? How? How did Scalia's majority opinion perpetuate that?

If you bother to research the history of gun control you'll find that the root was to keep those 'nigger's' from posing a threat to the white gentry. A legacy of slavery that infected the white population North and South.

Now you postulate that Scalia, by removing the barricades, and allowing the black man to protect himself and his family is racist?

You're pretty much a racialist moron.

 

[YDB95]

Who's they exactly? The supreme court started getting notoriety when the democrats started shiting all over the confirmation hearings.

First of all, investigating a credible accusation of sexual abuse is not "shiting all over the confirmation hearings" (especially not since "shiting" isn't even a word, but I digress). Secondly, plenty of the Warren Court decisions (1953-69) were controversial.

And whatever you may choose to believe about how GOP nominees for the Court were treated at their hearings, at least they got hearings.

 

[pecksniff]

If you bother to research the history of gun control you'll find that the root was to keep those 'nigger's' from posing a threat to the white gentry. A legacy of slavery that infected the white population North and South.

That was also one of the purposes of the 2A.

 

[icanhelp1]

First of all, investigating a credible accusation of sexual abuse is not "shiting all over the confirmation hearings" (especially not since "shiting" isn't even a word, but I digress). Secondly, plenty of the Warren Court decisions (1953-69) were controversial.

And whatever you may choose to believe about how GOP nominees for the Court were treated at their hearings, at least they got hearings.

It was never a credible accusation, it was character assassination, the most despicable behavior ever by a congressional body. The Dem senators on the confirmation committee were a despicable lot, you know it and I know it.

I never said there was never controversy, I wrote that for the most part the Supreme Court was not the most prevalent body in our governmental system. I don’t believe, in my opinion, that the majority of people knew who the justices were, not like today.

 

[Chobham]

That was also one of the purposes of the 2A.

Really? Then Scalia fixed that, right?

 

[pecksniff]

It was never a credible accusation, it was character assassination, the most despicable behavior ever by a congressional body. The Dem senators on the confirmation committee were a despicable lot, you know it and I know it.

You know the only despicable person in that room was Kavanaugh.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

Now you postulate that Scalia, by removing the barricades, and allowing the black man to protect himself and his family is racist?

Scalia didn't remove jack shit. He turned SCOTUS into a case-by-case political veto on specific gun control laws, without any credible unifying theory presented inside the Heller opinion itself.

Indeed, PER MY PREVIOUS POST (hint hint, nudge nudge, read it again, try comprehending it,) he set out a clear interpretation of the plain text, to wit: it's as close to an absolute right as we have in the entire document.

He then immediately stabbed his own interpretation in the back, to make sure that governments could still keep some gun control laws on the books.

Wow, what a shock, he did absolutely nothing to strike down the link between rampant, malicious overcriminalization and over-incarceration of the country's brown and poor communities, and the consequent deprivation of their right to legally own guns.

 

[YDB95]

It was never a credible accusation, it was character assassination, the most despicable behavior ever by a congressional body.

The only character assassination I saw was what people like you did to Dr. Ford.

 

[ll74]

I don't remember needing proof of militia status when I bought my gun...weird. it's IN the Constitution....I guess they just assume I'm a part of one

 

[JohnnySavage]

In NYSRPA v. Corlett (Bruen) the Court is going to expand the right to concelled carry outside the home and place of business.

There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[icanhelp1]

The only character assassination I saw was what people like you did to Dr. Ford.

30 years later Ford decides to come forward? Give me a break! Democrats used Ford like an old latrine mop to smear Kavanagh to advance their agenda. Dems didn't give two shits about Ford, they were content to drag her through the mud. When that didn't work Dems conjured up other witnesses to lie, again to advance their agenda, attempted payback for Garland. I used to have a great respect for Senator Feinstein but how she conducted herself, especially being a lawyer herself, was despicable, went against all ethical protocols, she lowered herself and the committee to new lows, worst than that shitbag Ted Kennedy's character assassination of Robert Bork.

 

[Rotadom]

30 years later Ford decides to come forward? Give me a break!

This is all we need to know about you.