Heller Struck Down

[Ninja]

Just wondering what our friends midcan and mattskramer think of the Heller decision

*SNICKER*

 

[jillian]

What part of the 2nd did the other 4 NOT understand?

Oh...they understood it allright. I read their analysis and Scalia's. Did you? And, if you did, did you care? I mean other than getting the result you wanted.

 

[Ninja]

Oh...they understood it allright. I read their analysis and Scalia's. Did you? And, if you did, did you care? I mean other than getting the result you wanted.

So Jillian, what is it about the overturning of a law that barred law-abiding American citizens from owning functional rifles and shotguns, and ALL handguns, that has you so upset?

Personally, I wish there was a way to impeach the 4 who dissented. Anyone who could get such a simple, clear-cut issue that wrong is clearly fucked in the head and in no way, shape or form fit to serve on the court.

 

[jillian]

So Jillian, what is it about the overturning of a law that barred law-abiding American citizens from owning functional rifles and shotguns, and ALL handguns, that has you so upset?

Personally, I wish there was a way to impeach the 4 who dissented. Anyone who could get such a simple, clear-cut issue that wrong is clearly fucked in the head and in no way, shape or form fit to serve on the court.

I'm all about balance. I thought the D.C. ban was overkill. On the other hand, I don't live in Murder Central.

But the decision was not well written and the analysis was so poor that the dissenting justices were essentially able to laugh at Scalia.... and they did. That said, no... it wasn't a simple analysis. If it were, don't you think the Court would have dealt with the issue sooner. Pity that the Miller Court were so weak that they allowed Scalia's Court to frame the issue.

But it's kind of cute what the Court decided to do on Bush's way out the door. Seems that they need to do a bit of pre-emptive strikes at whatever effort at reason the next president might wish to make. Today they also decided that people running for office shouldn't get competition from not-so-rich people running for office because it might *snicker* infrige on the free speech of the rich guy.

Pathetic excuse for justices... but not the ones you object to....and it has nothing to do with the gun ban per se because you know my feelings on the 2nd.

 

[Ninja]

I'm all about balance. I thought the D.C. ban was overkill. On the other hand, I don't live in Murder Central.

But the decision was not well written and the analysis was so poor that the dissenting justices were essentially able to laugh at Scalia.... and they did. That said, no... it wasn't a simple analysis. If it were, don't you think the Court would have dealt with the issue sooner. Pity that the Miller Court were so weak that they allowed Scalia's Court to frame the issue.

But it's kind of cute what the Court decided to do on Bush's way out the door. Seems that they need to do a bit of pre-emptive strikes at whatever effort at reason the next president might wish to make. Today they also decided that people running for office shouldn't get competition from not-so-rich people running for office because it might *snicker* infrige on the free speech of the rich guy.

Pathetic excuse for justices... but not the ones you object to....and it has nothing to do with the gun ban per se because you know my feelings on the 2nd.

It's a very simple issue.

The only problem with Scalia's analysis is that it took him 64 pages to say what I could have said in 64 words.

Reminds me of the saying, "attorneys use a specific analytical framework beaten into the spot that used to house our common sense."

 

[jillian]

It's a very simple issue.

The only problem with Scalia's analysis is that it took him 64 pages to say what I could have said in 64 words.

Reminds me of the saying, "attorneys use a specific analytical framework beaten into the spot that used to house our common sense."

Really? If it was so simple, why was there no analysis that addressed the militia issue? The Second doesn't exist piecemeal.

 

[Ninja]

So Jillian, now that it'll be easier to acquire firearms in NYC - whatcha gonna buy?

 

[jillian]

So Jillian, now that it'll be easier to acquire firearms in NYC - whatcha gonna buy?

I don't think it will get easier in NY. The Court made it clear, even today, that only a total ban violated the Constitution but reasonable regulation was ok. So don't go doing the happy dance just yet. I'm sure the husband has something in mind. I just can't remember the one he wants offhand. lol..

 

[Ninja]

This illustrates Scalia's brilliance.

why was there no analysis that addressed the militia issue?

It's Scalia's way of saying there is no militia issue.

The militia issue is OVER. We won. You lost.

The Second doesn't exist piecemeal.

It does now

Also, you'll get a kick out of this.

Apparently Alan Gura was a major dick to Paul Helmke this morning -
"why don't you go do some global warming or something"

You'll be excited to know that Mr. Gura has already filed in Chicago

Have a great night, Jillian.

 

[Ninja]

MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE

 

[jillian]

This illustrates Scalia's brilliance.



It's Scalia's way of saying there is no militia issue.

Which is why people are laughing at his analysis.

The militia issue is OVER. We won. You lost.

Not really, kiddo. The Court did. I didn't have a horse in this race.

It does now

So all the whinging "strict constructionists" were liars and don't think the Constitution should be strictly construed when they want to distort the outcome?

There was a better way to do this case than by flawed and embarrassing analysis.

Also, you'll get a kick out of this.

Apparently Alan Gura was a major dick to Paul Helmke this morning -
"why don't you go do some global warming or something"

You'll be excited to know that Mr. Gura has already filed in Chicago

Have a great night, Jillian.

I'm so exicted. lol...

Have a great night, too, kiddo. ;o)

 

[Annie]

Which is why people are laughing at his analysis.



Not really, kiddo. The Court did. I didn't have a horse in this race.




So all the whinging "strict constructionists" were liars and don't think the Constitution should be strictly construed when they want to distort the outcome?

There was a better way to do this case than by flawed and embarrassing analysis.



I'm so exicted. lol...

Have a great night, too, kiddo. ;o)

Daley wasn't laughing, sputtering, certainly.

 

[Ninja]

Daley wasn't laughing, sputtering, certainly.

Daley looked pissed

As I said, Gura filed in Chicago today. The Chicago ban is toast

 

[jillian]

Daley wasn't laughing, sputtering, certainly.

I wasn't talking about Daley. I was talking about the lawyers and judges who read the decision. Even those who agreed with the outcome thought the reasoning was a joke... perhaps intentionally so.

 

[jreeves]

Daley looked pissed

As I said, Gura filed in Chicago today. The Chicago ban is toast

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Oh...they understood it allright. I read their analysis and Scalia's. Did you? And, if you did, did you care? I mean other than getting the result you wanted.

Now jillian, I'm sure I'll be able to find out how unenlightened ginsu and company were in their opinion. I plan on perusing over it this weekend.

 

[Gunny]

I'm all about balance. I thought the D.C. ban was overkill. On the other hand, I don't live in Murder Central.

But the decision was not well written and the analysis was so poor that the dissenting justices were essentially able to laugh at Scalia.... and they did. That said, no... it wasn't a simple analysis. If it were, don't you think the Court would have dealt with the issue sooner. Pity that the Miller Court were so weak that they allowed Scalia's Court to frame the issue.

But it's kind of cute what the Court decided to do on Bush's way out the door. Seems that they need to do a bit of pre-emptive strikes at whatever effort at reason the next president might wish to make. Today they also decided that people running for office shouldn't get competition from not-so-rich people running for office because it might *snicker* infrige on the free speech of the rich guy.

Pathetic excuse for justices... but not the ones you object to....and it has nothing to do with the gun ban per se because you know my feelings on the 2nd.

Don't you think there is something wrong when the city/state that has the strictest hangun control laws in the nation also has the highest handgun murder rate?

Criminals don't fear unarmed, law-abiding citzens.

 

[jillian]

Don't you think there is something wrong when the city/state that has the strictest hangun control laws in the nation also has the highest handgun murder rate?

Criminals don't fear unarmed, law-abiding citzens.

Honestly, I think it's pretty clear that there is little to no correlation between tighter gun laws and higher crime rates. But that isn't what interests me about the case.

As I've always said, I'm all about balance on this issue. And I was really hoping that with the Court taking the issue on fully for the first time in our history, that the decision wouldn't be such an insult to its readers. I was really hoping it would be something briliant, regardless of outcome.

 

[jillian]

Now jillian, I'm sure I'll be able to find out how unenlightened ginsu and company were in their opinion. I plan on perusing over it this weekend.

You mean Ruth Bader Ginsberg? She didn't write the dissenting opinions.

BTW, just for fun, you should really read the dissent. It was one of the snarkiest (and best) I've ever read.... shows what a real constitutional scholar can do.

 

[Ninja]

I for one am interested in knowing what a "real" constitutional scholar CAN do...

We were shown today what a "real" constitutional scholar CAN'T do... Uphold the DC gun ban