rushmc 18 #76 July 7, 2010 You are the only one being silly The Constitution is not supposed to be fluid or living This is just the lie progressive liberials like yourself have to pust to try and justify the shit you push Heller was a proper decision based on history, intent and law. The bad news is 4 voted against the constitution."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #77 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuote BTW, how is the term, "well regulated" whether hyphenated or not, there is some dispute, how does that mean, " well maintained?" It's a stretch to say the least. But that allows the logic that we don't have to check in our guns for regulation. QuoteIt's hardly difficult to understand definitions at the time, nor the reason behind it. The Americans fought with armies and with militia, and the difference in quality of training was readily apparent. OK, you claim there were diffs is word meaning; could be. But that doesn't establish, "well-regulated" means, "well oiled" it just assumes that. By today's standard it's a huge stretch, so we would need a dictionary from that era, but I guess you just want to assume that. Truth is the justices just wanted to decided a given way, they did and then looked for ways to justify it. It's called building a case from the top, down, cops and prosecutors do it as protocol, I'm used to it - it's flawed logic but I see it all the time. Quotefrom one of the 10 consecutive posts lucky made Ok, who taught Kelp how to count, I thought we had agreed not to do that? QuoteI only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? QuoteLOL - that never gets old! Such a prodigy really should be part of Bill Gates' billionaire club. I see you support your ad hominem with a compound ad hominem; again, I'm used to it. When you've spoke with and been taught by as many legal scholars as I have, you get used to eyes rolling when you bring up the concept, "Constitution." This old rag is best left for Libertarian nuts, Minutemen, and children who still believe Santa Claus is real, the gov will do what they want and circumvent the US Const. Well, your party wanted to enact Amendment 28 with the homophobe Amend, do you believe the FF meant that same sex should not marry and if so, should we be stuck with such an antiquated concept? How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #78 July 7, 2010 QuoteYou are the only one being silly The Constitution is not supposed to be fluid or living This is just the lie progressive liberials like yourself have to pust to try and justify the shit you push Heller was a proper decision based on history, intent and law. The bad news is 4 voted against the constitution. Ok, here's an example I just wrote, address this or show us all how meaningful your contribution here is: How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites timmyfitz 0 #79 July 7, 2010 Quote Quote [from one of the 10 consecutive posts lucky made] I only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? LOL - that never gets old! Such a prodigy really should be part of Bill Gates' billionaire club. With all that studying and expertise you would think he is a lawyer or working in the legal field in some capacity. Not even close though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites timmyfitz 0 #80 July 7, 2010 Quote When you've spoke with and been taught by as many legal scholars as I have LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #81 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments. And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #82 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou are the only one being silly The Constitution is not supposed to be fluid or living This is just the lie progressive liberials like yourself have to pust to try and justify the shit you push Heller was a proper decision based on history, intent and law. The bad news is 4 voted against the constitution. Ok, here's an example I just wrote, address this or show us all how meaningful your contribution here is: How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today. Could you put this in english please?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #83 July 7, 2010 QuoteSo are you saying an action taken by the city of Chicago isn't a state action? Or are you just gonna keep running, telling us about your meaningless vacation? Perhaps that's your excuse to not revisit this thread; you were on vacation. It is a state action (as in a government decree), but not the action of a State (as in the state of Illinois). It is awkward to refer to an action by a city council as a state action; but not technically incorrect unless the S is capitalized. My nerd/geek contribution for the day. Similar standards apply to nation/Nation. One is cultural, one is a sovereign entity." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #84 July 7, 2010 Quote This old rag is best left for Libertarian nuts, Minutemen, and children who still believe Santa Claus is real, the gov will do what they want and circumvent the US Const. Well, your party wanted to enact Amendment 28 with the homophobe Amend, do you believe the FF meant that same sex should not marry and if so, should we be stuck with such an antiquated concept? How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today. What a big pile of straw and horseshit. How exactly are you tying together gun rights and opposition to marriage rights? Loving was an obvious consequence of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. 'The right to marry another person (note it did not say a person of the opposite sex) is a fundamental right.' Gay marriage will follow in time, if the religious right and the Mormons keep fighting it. The Constitution, despite your attempts to insist it doesn't matter, covered these rights for "the people." They may have had an incomplete version of who the people comprised, but that was the world of that time. Notice how few other nations have had a standing government for as long a time. Thank the FF for getting it right on take #2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #85 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then? QuoteNope, didn't say that Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings. No, you wont, because I didn't say THAT, either. Sorry. QuoteQuote- I seem to recall Obama telling Congress to "forcefully respond" to a SC decision recently, though (Citizens United) - guess he's not quite the Constitutional scholar y'all thought he was. I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track. Actually, no...this thread is about the McDonald decision applying the 2nd amendment against the states. DO try to stay up and on track. QuoteNext you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are). QuoteQuoteMake up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'? Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that. So, show proof how they're decided from the 'to-down' and convince me. So far, your OPINION of how the court works hasn't. QuoteQuoteHeller is the pefect example of how it it supposed to work. Right, because you like the outcome. Had the SCOTUS decided far off what Heller gace us, then it would have been completely wrong; ends justify the means. Yes, I agree with it - they got it right for once. Miller was half-right in that regard, but lost on default when Miller didn't show. Quoteirrelevant shit and minor pa deleted QuoteBTW, how is the term, "well regulated" whether hyphenated or not, there is some dispute, how does that mean, " well maintained?" It's a stretch to say the least. But that allows the logic that we don't have to check in our guns for regulation. The only dispute is in the mind of the gun grabbers - go read Copperud's linguistic evaluation of the Second - I've posted it here before.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #86 July 7, 2010 QuoteI only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? I'm supposed to be impressed, seeing as how REGULARLY you get your ass handed to you by REAL lawyers? I'm sure your bosses in the aircraft shop are VERY impressed by it, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #87 July 7, 2010 Quote News: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts This one is a really nice touch: "Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers."Why no, that's not restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights... Especially since they can't even transport their guns to the class. Quote The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. This is not a law, this is a pissing match. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #88 July 7, 2010 Quote Especially since they can't even transport their guns to the class. Quote The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. Seems to make new purchases a real problem too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #89 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteI've never been to the state of Chicago. I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government. In Constitutional law, that is generally incorrect. For example, the Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Here, "States" very obviously means the individual "states" of the "United States" and they refer to the United States federal government separately, making it very clear that "States" does not refer to any level of government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #90 July 7, 2010 ahhh yes but the right to bear is necessary to keep a free State, not a free city Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #91 July 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments. And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. See, Mike, once you get around the law a bit, it becomes clear what drives it. Now you will never back down, but maybe in a different forum, different venue you will learn a bit. Mike, I know you've resigned me to being just some GD liberal fuck (that should draw some fun quote responses) but this guy has it nailed and he's a lawyer. As I said before, starry-eyed kids dream of this wonderful, noble document where we all face the ground and feel awe-inspired if we were ever in the same room as it, but it's just a museum piece to those in the know. If not then you wouldn't hate the justices I adore and vice versa. I mean the evidence is right there espoused by you and yours, yet you don't acknowledge it. >>> ...but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. And abortion, and elections (200 pres election), and 4th issues and so on and so on, etc..... >>> In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. >>> Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. Just like any of would be; I wouldn't be objective and I doubt anyone can be with that kind of power. >>> The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. STATEMENT OF THE YEAR NOMINATION. Either that or my justices are objective and Mike's are evil activists with a RW agenda. Funny, he says mine are activist; who'da thunk it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #92 July 8, 2010 Esquire AndyBoyd wrote this absolutely brilliant post and you posted twice to me after his, yet nothing about his? We get it, unless you and the usual suspects can group together and post your 15 cents worth of legal knowledge in the form of compounded ad hominem, you have no interest in real intelligent discourse. Come on, Andy comes off as reasonable, objective and he's a lawyer; what more do you want? He's saying what I've been saying for a while; why avoid it? One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #93 July 8, 2010 QuoteThe Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics Still waiting, Lucky - show me ONE case where the decision shows that it was decided the way it was due to politics. You want to pretend you're a lawyer - make your case. QuoteSee, Mike, once you get around the law a bit, it becomes clear what drives it. Now you will never back down, but maybe in a different forum, different venue you will learn a bit. Mike, I know you've resigned me to being just some GD liberal fuck (that should draw some fun quote responses) but this guy has it nailed and he's a lawyer. And you know this, of course, through your VAST experience pleading cases in a court of law...right? QuoteQuoteIn my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. I don't disagree with his point - that's what makes it even more important that a judge look at the views and writings of the people who made the law - something that you've stated over and over again is unimportant. Oh, and by the way, Mr. Legal expert: Moot: adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. So, which did you mean? That the statement was subject to debate, that it was without legal significance, or that it was of no practical importance?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #94 July 8, 2010 QuoteEsquire AndyBoyd wrote this absolutely brilliant post and you posted twice to me after his, yet nothing about his? We get it, unless you and the usual suspects can group together and post your 15 cents worth of legal knowledge in the form of compounded ad hominem, you have no interest in real intelligent discourse. Come on, Andy comes off as reasonable, objective and he's a lawyer; what more do you want? He's saying what I've been saying for a while; why avoid it? Here, have a tissue while you whine about getting what you give out. Oh, and "asked and answered" in the post above, "counselor" - better get started with your "case" before you're held in contempt.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #95 July 8, 2010 One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot moot (mt) n. 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - They have moot courts in law schools, but the contemporary practical everyday meaning in legal circles is that, "moot" means already decided, redundant to discuss ' irrelevant, etc. Tell what they think it means on the Texas farmland, I'm totally interested. See, you have once again distanced yourself from those with educations, yet insist on heckling me for having one. ROFLOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #96 July 8, 2010 QuoteOne issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college Are people without college degrees all stupid? If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lost_n_confuzd 0 #97 July 8, 2010 Quote One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). That's a low blow man Not cool, Lucky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #98 July 8, 2010 Quote One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). That's good - you get confused so easily. Quote http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot moot (mt) n. 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - They have moot courts in law schools, but the contemporary practical everyday meaning in legal circles is that, "moot" means already decided, redundant to discuss ' irrelevant, etc. Tell what they think it means on the Texas farmland, I'm totally interested. Ok, so you admit it was irrelevant, having no practical value. Glad you cleared that up for us. Quote See, you have once again distanced yourself from those with educations, yet insist on heckling me for having one. ROFLOL Lucky's law vo-tech ... must be quite a school. Lemme know which one it was, will you? They might have even heard of it at my old college...the University of Texas.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #99 July 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteOne issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college Are people without college degrees all stupid? If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without? It certainly makes for superior earning potential... QuoteJust in case you still had some doubts, the U.S. Census Bureau has released data proving the substantial value of a college education in the United States. Workers 18 and over sporting bachelors degrees earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915. But wait, there's more. Workers with an advanced degree make an average of $74,602, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734. It appears that those with a degree are certainly blessed with enough smarts to make their lives and the lives of their families more secure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #100 July 8, 2010 QuoteI don't disagree with his point - that's what makes it even more important that a judge look at the views and writings of the people who made the law - something that you've stated over and over again is unimportant. You still missed the (long) bus, the short one will be by soon. Andy wrote: - ... the Supreme Court is a political institution. - ... when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. - In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. - Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. - The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. - Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Now you come back and agree, yet then say we need objective justices. Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying of course justices are partial and all will be, but we need justices that don't exist; impartial ones. You demand the impossible; objective justices not driven by party lines. It isn't there and the earth hasn't spun off its axis, these guys you want don't exist so you have to pick people who side with your position; that's how it works. What you've said is tanamount to: We need gasoline cars that don't pollute. MIKE, IT AINT THERE, BRO. We can try to get cars that don't pollute as much, but in the end we're stuck with pollution or walking/biking. We need paracgutes that don't malfunction. If you agree they all can mal (same as agreeing justices are agenda-driven) then we have to just take it for what it is. With skydiving we can decide not to jump with the knowledge they can mal, but since we must skydive we chose a chute that mals in a way we can deal with. Get the analogy? You're that starry-eyed kid, dreaming of watching the FF's sign teh US Const as if it were baby Jebus in the manger, but it just isn't that relevant today. You not addressing the Loving V Virginia example is evidence to all you're running. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #78 July 7, 2010 QuoteYou are the only one being silly The Constitution is not supposed to be fluid or living This is just the lie progressive liberials like yourself have to pust to try and justify the shit you push Heller was a proper decision based on history, intent and law. The bad news is 4 voted against the constitution. Ok, here's an example I just wrote, address this or show us all how meaningful your contribution here is: How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #79 July 7, 2010 Quote Quote [from one of the 10 consecutive posts lucky made] I only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? LOL - that never gets old! Such a prodigy really should be part of Bill Gates' billionaire club. With all that studying and expertise you would think he is a lawyer or working in the legal field in some capacity. Not even close though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #80 July 7, 2010 Quote When you've spoke with and been taught by as many legal scholars as I have LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #81 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments. And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #82 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou are the only one being silly The Constitution is not supposed to be fluid or living This is just the lie progressive liberials like yourself have to pust to try and justify the shit you push Heller was a proper decision based on history, intent and law. The bad news is 4 voted against the constitution. Ok, here's an example I just wrote, address this or show us all how meaningful your contribution here is: How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today. Could you put this in english please?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #83 July 7, 2010 QuoteSo are you saying an action taken by the city of Chicago isn't a state action? Or are you just gonna keep running, telling us about your meaningless vacation? Perhaps that's your excuse to not revisit this thread; you were on vacation. It is a state action (as in a government decree), but not the action of a State (as in the state of Illinois). It is awkward to refer to an action by a city council as a state action; but not technically incorrect unless the S is capitalized. My nerd/geek contribution for the day. Similar standards apply to nation/Nation. One is cultural, one is a sovereign entity." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #84 July 7, 2010 Quote This old rag is best left for Libertarian nuts, Minutemen, and children who still believe Santa Claus is real, the gov will do what they want and circumvent the US Const. Well, your party wanted to enact Amendment 28 with the homophobe Amend, do you believe the FF meant that same sex should not marry and if so, should we be stuck with such an antiquated concept? How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today. What a big pile of straw and horseshit. How exactly are you tying together gun rights and opposition to marriage rights? Loving was an obvious consequence of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. 'The right to marry another person (note it did not say a person of the opposite sex) is a fundamental right.' Gay marriage will follow in time, if the religious right and the Mormons keep fighting it. The Constitution, despite your attempts to insist it doesn't matter, covered these rights for "the people." They may have had an incomplete version of who the people comprised, but that was the world of that time. Notice how few other nations have had a standing government for as long a time. Thank the FF for getting it right on take #2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then? QuoteNope, didn't say that Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings. No, you wont, because I didn't say THAT, either. Sorry. QuoteQuote- I seem to recall Obama telling Congress to "forcefully respond" to a SC decision recently, though (Citizens United) - guess he's not quite the Constitutional scholar y'all thought he was. I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track. Actually, no...this thread is about the McDonald decision applying the 2nd amendment against the states. DO try to stay up and on track. QuoteNext you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are). QuoteQuoteMake up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'? Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that. So, show proof how they're decided from the 'to-down' and convince me. So far, your OPINION of how the court works hasn't. QuoteQuoteHeller is the pefect example of how it it supposed to work. Right, because you like the outcome. Had the SCOTUS decided far off what Heller gace us, then it would have been completely wrong; ends justify the means. Yes, I agree with it - they got it right for once. Miller was half-right in that regard, but lost on default when Miller didn't show. Quoteirrelevant shit and minor pa deleted QuoteBTW, how is the term, "well regulated" whether hyphenated or not, there is some dispute, how does that mean, " well maintained?" It's a stretch to say the least. But that allows the logic that we don't have to check in our guns for regulation. The only dispute is in the mind of the gun grabbers - go read Copperud's linguistic evaluation of the Second - I've posted it here before.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #86 July 7, 2010 QuoteI only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? I'm supposed to be impressed, seeing as how REGULARLY you get your ass handed to you by REAL lawyers? I'm sure your bosses in the aircraft shop are VERY impressed by it, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #87 July 7, 2010 Quote News: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts This one is a really nice touch: "Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers."Why no, that's not restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights... Especially since they can't even transport their guns to the class. Quote The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. This is not a law, this is a pissing match. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #88 July 7, 2010 Quote Especially since they can't even transport their guns to the class. Quote The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. Seems to make new purchases a real problem too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #89 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteI've never been to the state of Chicago. I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government. In Constitutional law, that is generally incorrect. For example, the Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Here, "States" very obviously means the individual "states" of the "United States" and they refer to the United States federal government separately, making it very clear that "States" does not refer to any level of government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #90 July 7, 2010 ahhh yes but the right to bear is necessary to keep a free State, not a free city Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #91 July 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments. And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. See, Mike, once you get around the law a bit, it becomes clear what drives it. Now you will never back down, but maybe in a different forum, different venue you will learn a bit. Mike, I know you've resigned me to being just some GD liberal fuck (that should draw some fun quote responses) but this guy has it nailed and he's a lawyer. As I said before, starry-eyed kids dream of this wonderful, noble document where we all face the ground and feel awe-inspired if we were ever in the same room as it, but it's just a museum piece to those in the know. If not then you wouldn't hate the justices I adore and vice versa. I mean the evidence is right there espoused by you and yours, yet you don't acknowledge it. >>> ...but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. And abortion, and elections (200 pres election), and 4th issues and so on and so on, etc..... >>> In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. >>> Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. Just like any of would be; I wouldn't be objective and I doubt anyone can be with that kind of power. >>> The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. STATEMENT OF THE YEAR NOMINATION. Either that or my justices are objective and Mike's are evil activists with a RW agenda. Funny, he says mine are activist; who'da thunk it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #92 July 8, 2010 Esquire AndyBoyd wrote this absolutely brilliant post and you posted twice to me after his, yet nothing about his? We get it, unless you and the usual suspects can group together and post your 15 cents worth of legal knowledge in the form of compounded ad hominem, you have no interest in real intelligent discourse. Come on, Andy comes off as reasonable, objective and he's a lawyer; what more do you want? He's saying what I've been saying for a while; why avoid it? One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #93 July 8, 2010 QuoteThe Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics Still waiting, Lucky - show me ONE case where the decision shows that it was decided the way it was due to politics. You want to pretend you're a lawyer - make your case. QuoteSee, Mike, once you get around the law a bit, it becomes clear what drives it. Now you will never back down, but maybe in a different forum, different venue you will learn a bit. Mike, I know you've resigned me to being just some GD liberal fuck (that should draw some fun quote responses) but this guy has it nailed and he's a lawyer. And you know this, of course, through your VAST experience pleading cases in a court of law...right? QuoteQuoteIn my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. I don't disagree with his point - that's what makes it even more important that a judge look at the views and writings of the people who made the law - something that you've stated over and over again is unimportant. Oh, and by the way, Mr. Legal expert: Moot: adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. So, which did you mean? That the statement was subject to debate, that it was without legal significance, or that it was of no practical importance?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #94 July 8, 2010 QuoteEsquire AndyBoyd wrote this absolutely brilliant post and you posted twice to me after his, yet nothing about his? We get it, unless you and the usual suspects can group together and post your 15 cents worth of legal knowledge in the form of compounded ad hominem, you have no interest in real intelligent discourse. Come on, Andy comes off as reasonable, objective and he's a lawyer; what more do you want? He's saying what I've been saying for a while; why avoid it? Here, have a tissue while you whine about getting what you give out. Oh, and "asked and answered" in the post above, "counselor" - better get started with your "case" before you're held in contempt.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #95 July 8, 2010 One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot moot (mt) n. 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - They have moot courts in law schools, but the contemporary practical everyday meaning in legal circles is that, "moot" means already decided, redundant to discuss ' irrelevant, etc. Tell what they think it means on the Texas farmland, I'm totally interested. See, you have once again distanced yourself from those with educations, yet insist on heckling me for having one. ROFLOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #96 July 8, 2010 QuoteOne issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college Are people without college degrees all stupid? If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lost_n_confuzd 0 #97 July 8, 2010 Quote One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). That's a low blow man Not cool, Lucky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #98 July 8, 2010 Quote One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). That's good - you get confused so easily. Quote http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot moot (mt) n. 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - They have moot courts in law schools, but the contemporary practical everyday meaning in legal circles is that, "moot" means already decided, redundant to discuss ' irrelevant, etc. Tell what they think it means on the Texas farmland, I'm totally interested. Ok, so you admit it was irrelevant, having no practical value. Glad you cleared that up for us. Quote See, you have once again distanced yourself from those with educations, yet insist on heckling me for having one. ROFLOL Lucky's law vo-tech ... must be quite a school. Lemme know which one it was, will you? They might have even heard of it at my old college...the University of Texas.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #99 July 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteOne issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college Are people without college degrees all stupid? If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without? It certainly makes for superior earning potential... QuoteJust in case you still had some doubts, the U.S. Census Bureau has released data proving the substantial value of a college education in the United States. Workers 18 and over sporting bachelors degrees earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915. But wait, there's more. Workers with an advanced degree make an average of $74,602, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734. It appears that those with a degree are certainly blessed with enough smarts to make their lives and the lives of their families more secure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #100 July 8, 2010 QuoteI don't disagree with his point - that's what makes it even more important that a judge look at the views and writings of the people who made the law - something that you've stated over and over again is unimportant. You still missed the (long) bus, the short one will be by soon. Andy wrote: - ... the Supreme Court is a political institution. - ... when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. - In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. - Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. - The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. - Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Now you come back and agree, yet then say we need objective justices. Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying of course justices are partial and all will be, but we need justices that don't exist; impartial ones. You demand the impossible; objective justices not driven by party lines. It isn't there and the earth hasn't spun off its axis, these guys you want don't exist so you have to pick people who side with your position; that's how it works. What you've said is tanamount to: We need gasoline cars that don't pollute. MIKE, IT AINT THERE, BRO. We can try to get cars that don't pollute as much, but in the end we're stuck with pollution or walking/biking. We need paracgutes that don't malfunction. If you agree they all can mal (same as agreeing justices are agenda-driven) then we have to just take it for what it is. With skydiving we can decide not to jump with the knowledge they can mal, but since we must skydive we chose a chute that mals in a way we can deal with. Get the analogy? You're that starry-eyed kid, dreaming of watching the FF's sign teh US Const as if it were baby Jebus in the manger, but it just isn't that relevant today. You not addressing the Loving V Virginia example is evidence to all you're running. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #86 July 7, 2010 QuoteI only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? I'm supposed to be impressed, seeing as how REGULARLY you get your ass handed to you by REAL lawyers? I'm sure your bosses in the aircraft shop are VERY impressed by it, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #87 July 7, 2010 Quote News: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts This one is a really nice touch: "Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers."Why no, that's not restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights... Especially since they can't even transport their guns to the class. Quote The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. This is not a law, this is a pissing match. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 July 7, 2010 Quote Especially since they can't even transport their guns to the class. Quote The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. Seems to make new purchases a real problem too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #89 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteI've never been to the state of Chicago. I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government. In Constitutional law, that is generally incorrect. For example, the Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Here, "States" very obviously means the individual "states" of the "United States" and they refer to the United States federal government separately, making it very clear that "States" does not refer to any level of government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #90 July 7, 2010 ahhh yes but the right to bear is necessary to keep a free State, not a free city Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #91 July 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments. And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. See, Mike, once you get around the law a bit, it becomes clear what drives it. Now you will never back down, but maybe in a different forum, different venue you will learn a bit. Mike, I know you've resigned me to being just some GD liberal fuck (that should draw some fun quote responses) but this guy has it nailed and he's a lawyer. As I said before, starry-eyed kids dream of this wonderful, noble document where we all face the ground and feel awe-inspired if we were ever in the same room as it, but it's just a museum piece to those in the know. If not then you wouldn't hate the justices I adore and vice versa. I mean the evidence is right there espoused by you and yours, yet you don't acknowledge it. >>> ...but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. And abortion, and elections (200 pres election), and 4th issues and so on and so on, etc..... >>> In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. >>> Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. Just like any of would be; I wouldn't be objective and I doubt anyone can be with that kind of power. >>> The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. STATEMENT OF THE YEAR NOMINATION. Either that or my justices are objective and Mike's are evil activists with a RW agenda. Funny, he says mine are activist; who'da thunk it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 July 8, 2010 Esquire AndyBoyd wrote this absolutely brilliant post and you posted twice to me after his, yet nothing about his? We get it, unless you and the usual suspects can group together and post your 15 cents worth of legal knowledge in the form of compounded ad hominem, you have no interest in real intelligent discourse. Come on, Andy comes off as reasonable, objective and he's a lawyer; what more do you want? He's saying what I've been saying for a while; why avoid it? One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 July 8, 2010 QuoteThe Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics Still waiting, Lucky - show me ONE case where the decision shows that it was decided the way it was due to politics. You want to pretend you're a lawyer - make your case. QuoteSee, Mike, once you get around the law a bit, it becomes clear what drives it. Now you will never back down, but maybe in a different forum, different venue you will learn a bit. Mike, I know you've resigned me to being just some GD liberal fuck (that should draw some fun quote responses) but this guy has it nailed and he's a lawyer. And you know this, of course, through your VAST experience pleading cases in a court of law...right? QuoteQuoteIn my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. I don't disagree with his point - that's what makes it even more important that a judge look at the views and writings of the people who made the law - something that you've stated over and over again is unimportant. Oh, and by the way, Mr. Legal expert: Moot: adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. So, which did you mean? That the statement was subject to debate, that it was without legal significance, or that it was of no practical importance?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 July 8, 2010 QuoteEsquire AndyBoyd wrote this absolutely brilliant post and you posted twice to me after his, yet nothing about his? We get it, unless you and the usual suspects can group together and post your 15 cents worth of legal knowledge in the form of compounded ad hominem, you have no interest in real intelligent discourse. Come on, Andy comes off as reasonable, objective and he's a lawyer; what more do you want? He's saying what I've been saying for a while; why avoid it? Here, have a tissue while you whine about getting what you give out. Oh, and "asked and answered" in the post above, "counselor" - better get started with your "case" before you're held in contempt.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #95 July 8, 2010 One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot moot (mt) n. 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - They have moot courts in law schools, but the contemporary practical everyday meaning in legal circles is that, "moot" means already decided, redundant to discuss ' irrelevant, etc. Tell what they think it means on the Texas farmland, I'm totally interested. See, you have once again distanced yourself from those with educations, yet insist on heckling me for having one. ROFLOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #96 July 8, 2010 QuoteOne issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college Are people without college degrees all stupid? If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #97 July 8, 2010 Quote One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). That's a low blow man Not cool, Lucky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #98 July 8, 2010 Quote One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). That's good - you get confused so easily. Quote http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot moot (mt) n. 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - They have moot courts in law schools, but the contemporary practical everyday meaning in legal circles is that, "moot" means already decided, redundant to discuss ' irrelevant, etc. Tell what they think it means on the Texas farmland, I'm totally interested. Ok, so you admit it was irrelevant, having no practical value. Glad you cleared that up for us. Quote See, you have once again distanced yourself from those with educations, yet insist on heckling me for having one. ROFLOL Lucky's law vo-tech ... must be quite a school. Lemme know which one it was, will you? They might have even heard of it at my old college...the University of Texas.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #99 July 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteOne issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college Are people without college degrees all stupid? If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without? It certainly makes for superior earning potential... QuoteJust in case you still had some doubts, the U.S. Census Bureau has released data proving the substantial value of a college education in the United States. Workers 18 and over sporting bachelors degrees earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915. But wait, there's more. Workers with an advanced degree make an average of $74,602, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734. It appears that those with a degree are certainly blessed with enough smarts to make their lives and the lives of their families more secure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #100 July 8, 2010 QuoteI don't disagree with his point - that's what makes it even more important that a judge look at the views and writings of the people who made the law - something that you've stated over and over again is unimportant. You still missed the (long) bus, the short one will be by soon. Andy wrote: - ... the Supreme Court is a political institution. - ... when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. - In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. - Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. - The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. - Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Now you come back and agree, yet then say we need objective justices. Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying of course justices are partial and all will be, but we need justices that don't exist; impartial ones. You demand the impossible; objective justices not driven by party lines. It isn't there and the earth hasn't spun off its axis, these guys you want don't exist so you have to pick people who side with your position; that's how it works. What you've said is tanamount to: We need gasoline cars that don't pollute. MIKE, IT AINT THERE, BRO. We can try to get cars that don't pollute as much, but in the end we're stuck with pollution or walking/biking. We need paracgutes that don't malfunction. If you agree they all can mal (same as agreeing justices are agenda-driven) then we have to just take it for what it is. With skydiving we can decide not to jump with the knowledge they can mal, but since we must skydive we chose a chute that mals in a way we can deal with. Get the analogy? You're that starry-eyed kid, dreaming of watching the FF's sign teh US Const as if it were baby Jebus in the manger, but it just isn't that relevant today. You not addressing the Loving V Virginia example is evidence to all you're running. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
