If this Supreme Court is consistent and not political it should overturn Heller
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:06:22 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  If this Supreme Court is consistent and not political it should overturn Heller
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If this Supreme Court is consistent and not political it should overturn Heller  (Read 684 times)
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 09, 2022, 02:54:45 PM »
« edited: June 09, 2022, 03:08:27 PM by OCPD Frank »

The draft ruling overturning the precedent of Roe V Wade argued:

1.Roe V Wade was badly argued and poorly written.

The Second Amendment is poorly written (it doesn't make any argument that applies to modern society since the U.S now has a standing army.)

2.Roe V Wade overturned historical precedent

Contrary to the lies of Antonin Scalia, Heller overturned historical precedent which through legislation regulating gun ownership had established that the Second Amendment provided for ownership of 'arms' in the context of a militia, and did not establish an individual right to own a gun.

3.Roe V Wade invalidated the legitimate concerns of the unborn fetus to life and, so, did not strike a proper balance between competing rights.

Heller invalidated the legitimate concerns of those living and dying with gun violence and so does not strike a proper balance between competing rights.

4.Taking abortion out of the political arena creates division in society.
Taking gun ownership out of the politica arena creates division in society.

5.Overturning Roe V Wade does not mean the Supreme Court bans abortion, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.

Overturning Heller does not mean the Supreme Court bans guns, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.

All of the arguments used to overturn Roe V Wade are the same arguments to overturn Heller.

Any further decision of this Supreme Court to expand gun 'rights' shows this Court is nothing more than a hack, partisan right wing group.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2022, 03:08:09 PM »

Shall not infringe.
+ 14th applied to other amendments.

Sounds simple enough. It was decided by legislatures 250 and 150 years ago accordingly.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2022, 03:10:50 PM »
« Edited: June 09, 2022, 03:22:35 PM by OCPD Frank »

Shall not infringe.
+ 14th applied to other amendments.

Sounds simple enough. It was decided by legislatures 250 and 150 years ago accordingly.

1.Leaving out the "well regulated militia" part, as is common with Second Amendment half truthers.

It was also these same legislatures that ~250 years ago and ~150 years ago passed laws regulating 'arms.'

2.The same 14th Amendment that was the basis of Roe V Wade but that this Supreme Court decided wasn't applicable.
Logged
Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom
theflyingmongoose
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,293
Norway


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2022, 04:38:47 PM »

The current SCOTUS doesn't have a consistent view other than ensuring misery for future generations by imposing outdated boomer values on the rest of the population.
Logged
TheFonz
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2022, 11:02:03 AM »

Shall not infringe.
+ 14th applied to other amendments.

Sounds simple enough. It was decided by legislatures 250 and 150 years ago accordingly.

1.Leaving out the "well regulated militia" part, as is common with Second Amendment half truthers.

It was also these same legislatures that ~250 years ago and ~150 years ago passed laws regulating 'arms.'

2.The same 14th Amendment that was the basis of Roe V Wade but that this Supreme Court decided wasn't applicable.

What does the "well regulated militia" part mean? What effect, as you see it, does it have on the second part?
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2022, 11:19:36 AM »
« Edited: June 10, 2022, 11:33:18 AM by OCPD Frank »

Shall not infringe.
+ 14th applied to other amendments.

Sounds simple enough. It was decided by legislatures 250 and 150 years ago accordingly.

1.Leaving out the "well regulated militia" part, as is common with Second Amendment half truthers.

It was also these same legislatures that ~250 years ago and ~150 years ago passed laws regulating 'arms.'

2.The same 14th Amendment that was the basis of Roe V Wade but that this Supreme Court decided wasn't applicable.

What does the "well regulated militia" part mean? What effect, as you see it, does it have on the second part?

It meant that ownership of 'arms' was in the context of Americans who were part of a 'well regulated' militia, meaning people who were accepted by the state or locality as part of the defense of the state or locality.

Since local and state militias have been replaced by state national guards and by a standing army (military), the Second Amendment has no modern relevancy.

This, as I stated above, is consistent with the regulations and laws against private ownership of 'arms' that were passed before and shortly after 1789 (and also passed around the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment.)

Given the modern irrelevancy of the Second Amendment, this draft Supreme Court opinion provides a road map for how to proceed on 'arms': leave it up to the people through their legislatures to decide which includes respecting state constitutions that do explicitly confer a right to individual gun ownership.
Logged
sparkey
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,103


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2022, 01:07:50 PM »

1.Roe V Wade was badly argued and poorly written.

The Second Amendment is poorly written (it doesn't make any argument that applies to modern society since the U.S now has a standing army.)

That could be used as an argument for overturning precedent set by a previous case, not a Constitutional amendment. The 2nd Amendment is written perfectly fine with 18th century grammar and vocabulary anyway.

2.Roe V Wade overturned historical precedent

Contrary to the lies of Antonin Scalia, Heller overturned historical precedent which through legislation regulating gun ownership had established that the Second Amendment provided for ownership of 'arms' in the context of a militia, and did not establish an individual right to own a gun.

Precedent is generally set by cases rather than legislation, and either way there's no such precedent. Arguments that Miller set this precedent are nonsensical, because if it had, the question would have been "was Miller in the militia?" but it was in fact "was Miller's gun useful for a militia?" which implies that the 2nd Amendment provides for individual ownership of firearms that are useful for a militia, not that they must be used in context of a militia.

3.Roe V Wade invalidated the legitimate concerns of the unborn fetus to life and, so, did not strike a proper balance between competing rights.

Heller invalidated the legitimate concerns of those living and dying with gun violence and so does not strike a proper balance between competing rights.

No rights are invalidated by the responsible keeping and bearing of arms, so there's no competing rights in the case of guns. Nobody is promoting legalizing murder.

4.Taking abortion out of the political arena creates division in society.
Taking gun ownership out of the politica arena creates division in society.

This standard could be used to help judge precedent on competing unenumerated rights, but of course not on enumerated rights.

5.Overturning Roe V Wade does not mean the Supreme Court bans abortion, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.

Overturning Heller does not mean the Supreme Court bans guns, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.

Although true about the effect of overturning Heller, this is of course not an argument to overturn Heller.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2022, 03:14:26 PM »
« Edited: June 10, 2022, 04:25:56 PM by OCPD Frank »

1.Roe V Wade was badly argued and poorly written.

The Second Amendment is poorly written (it doesn't make any argument that applies to modern society since the U.S now has a standing army.)

That could be used as an argument for overturning precedent set by a previous case, not a Constitutional amendment. The 2nd Amendment is written perfectly fine with 18th century grammar and vocabulary anyway.

2.Roe V Wade overturned historical precedent

Contrary to the lies of Antonin Scalia, Heller overturned historical precedent which through legislation regulating gun ownership had established that the Second Amendment provided for ownership of 'arms' in the context of a militia, and did not establish an individual right to own a gun.

Precedent is generally set by cases rather than legislation, and either way there's no such precedent. Arguments that Miller set this precedent are nonsensical, because if it had, the question would have been "was Miller in the militia?" but it was in fact "was Miller's gun useful for a militia?" which implies that the 2nd Amendment provides for individual ownership of firearms that are useful for a militia, not that they must be used in context of a militia.

3.Roe V Wade invalidated the legitimate concerns of the unborn fetus to life and, so, did not strike a proper balance between competing rights.

Heller invalidated the legitimate concerns of those living and dying with gun violence and so does not strike a proper balance between competing rights.

No rights are invalidated by the responsible keeping and bearing of arms, so there's no competing rights in the case of guns. Nobody is promoting legalizing murder.

4.Taking abortion out of the political arena creates division in society.
Taking gun ownership out of the politica arena creates division in society.

This standard could be used to help judge precedent on competing unenumerated rights, but of course not on enumerated rights.

5.Overturning Roe V Wade does not mean the Supreme Court bans abortion, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.

Overturning Heller does not mean the Supreme Court bans guns, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.

Although true about the effect of overturning Heller, this is of course not an argument to overturn Heller.

There are a number of intellectually dishonest arguments here:

1.The Second Amendment is as written. That you interpret it to mean 'an individual right to gun ownership' does not make it so and does not mean that Justicies can not rule otherwise and does not mean that this is what The Framers intended.

2.True.  So, basically Heller is 'precedent upon precedent.'  The same thing as the judges said testifying before the Senate.  Justices are not bound by precedent and can easily overturn both Miller and Heller.  Overturning precedent and ruling against the notion that there is a individual right to own a gun would both be consistent with this draft ruling overturning Roe V Wade.

3.In fact, this draft Supreme Court ruling does not argue that 'abortion is murder.' What it argues is that there is a compelling interest for the public to decide these things rather than judges. If it argued that 'abortion is murder'  it would have banned abortion on the basis of 'fetal pershonhood.'

So, it would be, again, be perfectly consistent and only perfectly consistent if the Supreme Court said 'when it comes to baring arms, it's up to the public to decide where the balance between competing rights should be.'

4.Again, it's only definitely in your mind that there is an 'enumerated right' based on the second amendment.  That the Founders themselves also wrote laws that regulated and limited gun ownership more than strongly suggests that they did not believe there was an enumerated right for an individual to 'bare arms.'
Logged
Jeerleader
Newbie
*
Posts: 9
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2022, 07:12:01 AM »

The Second Amendment is poorly written (it doesn't make any argument that applies to modern society since the U.S now has a standing army.)

SCOTUS has been boringly consistent reaffirming the principle that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence (Cruikshank, Presser, Heller). 

Contrary to the lies of Antonin Scalia, Heller overturned historical precedent which through legislation regulating gun ownership had established that the Second Amendment provided for ownership of 'arms' in the context of a militia, and did not establish an individual right to own a gun.

No, Heller sustained / affirmed Supreme Court precedent, Heller did invalidate lower federal court perversions that inserted the "militia right" and "state's right" in the federal system in 1942.  SCOTUS never recognized any permutation of any collective right interpretation for the 2ndA.  The two liberal dissenting Justices clear up this erroneous assault on the federal Constitution in the beginning of each's opinion.

Justice Breyer in his Heller dissent lays out  in a straightforward and legally cogent manner (which the other 3 liberal Justices concur):


    "The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

    (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). . . . "​


Breyer makes clear with his citation, "See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting) . . . ", that on this singular point of law -- the 2nd Amendment recognizes and secures an "individual right" -- and the Court is united in this unanimous and unequivocal conclusion.

Heller makes clear the Supreme Court in all its precedents, and in the three separate opinions from all members of the Court on that June day of 2008,, all stand on the same premise and legal determination, that the 2nd Amendment recognizes and secures an "individual right".

Heller invalidated the legitimate concerns of those living and dying with gun violence and so does not strike a proper balance between competing rights.

SCOTUS has no interest in such puffery and there are no competing rights because there is no enforceable right to be safe from crime in general and gun violence in particular.

Taking gun ownership out of the politica arena creates division in society.

Federally, gun ownership was never in the political arena; the right of the people to keep and bear arms was excepted out of the powers granted to the federal government, first by such powers being non-existent in the body of the Constitution and then, redundantly, by formal, express prohibition the 2nd Amendment.

In the states, their laws were not a federal concern or bound by the 2ndA until the 14th Amendment and the right secured by the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated against state action until 2010 (McDonald v Chicago).

Overturning Heller does not mean the Supreme Court bans guns, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.

Overturning what in Heller?  That the RKBA is a pre-existing individual right on par with our other original, retained, fundamental rights, thus the RKBA does not in any manner depend on the words used to secure it?

All of the arguments used to overturn Roe V Wade are the same arguments to overturn Heller.

Well, that is both wrong and backwards.  The penumbral rights theory is grounded in the nature of the rights secured in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights (including the 2ndA/RKBA) because those rights represent a rational continuum of liberty (see Harlan's dissent in Poe v Ullman, cited in Griswold and elevated to the opinion of the Court in Casey).

Using Harlan's foundational explanation of penumbral rights, if you want to recognize an interdependency between the right to abortion and the RKBA you should see that the mechanism to extinguish the right to privacy (Griswold) and all the derivative rights, to contraception, abortion and the many facets of LGBTQ+ rights, is found in the Democrat's success in extinguishing the right to arms . . .  If the right to arms can be cut out of the rational continuum of liberty, then the penumbral rights theory cannot be argued to exist, and the rights recognized and secured by it simply evaporate.

Any further decision of this Supreme Court to expand gun 'rights' shows this Court is nothing more than a hack, partisan right wing group.

The decision that we are waiting for, NYSRPA v Bruen, if it does what I expect, will make leftist anti-gunner's heads explode.  You will need your puppy therapy and crying rooms again.

.
Logged
(no subject)
Jolly Slugg
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 604
Australia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2022, 07:34:36 PM »

when you look at the official picture of Antonin Scalia, you are strongly reminded of the oil slick monster from Star Trek: NextGen.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.237 seconds with 12 queries.