National The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure [Heller]

[MrRob96]

I INVOKE THE AWESOME POWER OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE BENITEZ!

I think there's more sense hanging on to the arms of this dude's glasses after he takes them off than Stevens has in his head on a good day.

 

[titsonritz]

I INVOKE THE AWESOME POWER OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE BENITEZ!

I think there's more sense hanging on to the arms of this dude's glasses after he takes them off than Stevens has in his head on a good day.

View attachment 580199

His flushes have more common sense than Stevens.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

As an attorney, constitutional scholar, gun owner, and hobbyist of military/world history, I can 100% say that the it is a very TWISTED ILLOGIC to believe that the 2nd Amendment is as the leftists like Stevens believes.

A few cursory points.
1. It would be totally illogical for citizens to fight and defeat, with guns and cannons and ships etc., the largest most powerful oppressive nation in the world, only to then declare themselves to NOT have individual liberties and gun rights. And then store them in a collective. A reading of the Declaration of Independence overwhelmingly proves their distrust in powerful centralized government. Or read some of the Federalist papers...

2. NO OTHER RIGHT in the BORs is mandatory. All are optional to the owner of the right. Makes no sense to claim that being in a militia or owning a gun is mandatory. "Regulated" as used means a level of OPTIONAL organization and training. Has nothing to do with writing down serial numbers or background checks, etc. *IF* you wish to participate, you ARE ALLOWED TO organize, train, etc. Much like the 1A allows the right to gather.

3. Founders understood language. They used efficient plain language. They were not dumb. They expressly wrote that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It would be an infringement to:
* deprive one of individual guns and lock them in a public centralized armory
* create registration and confiscation schemes.
* ban designs, locations of ownership, parts, ammunition, magazines, and so forth.
* arbitrarily ban gun ownership as it is an infringement. The crown could have banned all outlaws from owning guns and declared everyone an outlaw.

4. NO OTHER RIGHT is altered based on scientific or technology advancements, so their nonsense points about advancements in gun designs falls flat. The 1A is broadened with computers, cell phones, internet, etc. The 4A is broadened to protect "papers" such as laptops, phones, emails, etc. The 8A has been broadened, the 3A has been broadened (to include highrise apartments and mobile homes and such), the 5A and 6A has been broadened with legal changes (defending allegations of child pornography, internet crimes, wire fraud, bank fraud, etc.), and so forth. NO RIGHT is locked into 1700s technology.

The leftists like Stevens are a disgrace to this nation.

Perfect! Stevens was always an outlier and did nothing for American jurisprudence except muddy the waters. I read and briefed thousands of USSC cases in law school and quickly came to the conclusion that among USSC associate justices Stevens was a mental midget. His non-sequiturs and irrelevant arguments in this article are typical.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I INVOKE THE AWESOME POWER OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE BENITEZ!

I think there's more sense hanging on to the arms of this dude's glasses after he takes them off than Stevens has in his head on a good day.

View attachment 580199

Benitez is awesome. I want to see him advanced to the USSC.

 

[Diamondback]

Benitez is awesome. I want to see him advanced to the USSC.

I wish somebody could brainwash Roberts into performing honorable seppuku so Trump could name Benitez the next Chief.

Then spike the "First Hispanic CJ" football straight into the Dems' collective nutsack and watch heads explode like the end of Kingsman...

 

[leadcounsel]

It is puzzling how Republicans have not really understood the importance of appointing STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES to the Courts including SCOTUS. Seems to me I would appoint a very strict Constitutionalist and mental powerhouse.

Ford gave us the disaster Stevens. Reagan gave us a terrible appointment in OConner. If you get 1 or 2 appointments in your term, why appoint such rotten picks?

Reagan gave us Kennedy, who was just okay really. And Bush gave us Roberts, who has proven to be unreliable. That's 2 terrible and 2 lackluster appointments in 4 decades.

 

[Diamondback]

It is puzzling how Republicans have not really understood the importance of appointing STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES to the Courts including SCOTUS. Seems to me I would appoint a very strict Constitutionalist and mental powerhouse.

Ford gave us the disaster Stevens. Reagan gave us a terrible appointment in OConner. If you get 1 or 2 appointments in your term, why appoint such rotten picks?

Reagan gave us Kennedy, who was just okay really. And Bush gave us Roberts, who has proven to be unreliable. That's 2 terrible and 2 lackluster appointments in 4 decades.

Because the Chamber of Crapweasel demands "status quo"... Reaganites are a minority in the GOP albeit a sizable one, most of the party's apparatchiks and those who know how to pull the levers of power are Bush League Establishment walking-garbage like Floppy Mittens.

 

[leadcounsel]

Well, Bush's SCOTUS record was a heck of a lot better than Ford or Reagan. Stevens and OConner were simply awful and extremely liberal.

I also forgot Souter, appointed by Bush Sr. Another terrible pick.

Bush Jr. gave us Alito and Roberts. Alito has proven to be a fantastic Justice, and Roberts generally pretty good. Both voted pro-freedom on Heller and McDonald. So in total, Bush Jr. really had the "best" track record for picks with Alito and Roberts.

I think Trump might have outdone all of them with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and likely replacing Ginsberg in the near term. Trump will likely deliver the strongest pro-Constitution court in modern history with replacing 3 liberals with 3 Constitutionalists. Odds are pretty good that before 2020, and almost a certainty if Trump is re-elected he'll get to replace Breyer (liberal), Ginsberg (liberal), and Thomas (Constitutionalist with a rumor he may retire to let Trump have another pick before 2020).

If it wasn't for really terrible picks by Ford, Bush Sr, and Reagan, we'd (had - past tense) a super majority of Constitutional SCOTUS judges.

Heller was 5-4. Those five pro-freedom votes were:
Scalia - Reagan appointee
Alito - Bush Jr. appointee
Kennedy - Reagan appointee
Thomas - Bush Sr. appointee
Roberts - Bush Jr. appointee

Four anti-freedom votes were:
Ginsberg - Clinton appointee
Stevens - Ford appointee
Souter - Bush Sr. appointee
Breyer - Clinton appointee

 

[0GRE]

No other image in recent memory crystalizes best the reason why the average citizen should be able to possess and train with military-grade destructive devices.

Good riddance to you, Mr. Stevens.

 

[nehalemguy]

Reed College professor Pancho Salvey came to my town for a "discussion" on guns a couple years back. He also took the position that U.S. vs Miller was the correct interpretation. I pointed out that neither Miller nor his legal counsel had appeared before the Supreme Court to argue the case. (Miller could not afford the cost of pursuing the case.)

With no one to argue the case before the Supreme Court.....except the government attorneys..... the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the federal district court for "further proceedings" that never took place. By the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed and co-defendant Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there was no one left to continue legal proceedings. The case basically died.

E

 

[billdeserthills]

If he wants to believe that only weapons suitable for a militia should be allowed, I am all for it. That should take the air out of anti-black gun groups. By the way we are the militia (the people) IMHO.

Sad fact is short-barreled shotguns were used by militia in trench warfare, so the NFA is a lie

 

[Layton]

It appears that these opinions are like most on 2A arguments. People believe what they want to believe and nothing else. It is sad when discussions turn to name calling and insults instead of informed and rational thoughts in opposition to a contrary stance.