USMB liberals, what is the role of SCOTUS to you?

[oreo]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

I would be real curious to see what you think the role of the SCOTUS is-- So please let us know. Clue: The SCOTUS has nothing to do with whom is a liberal or who is a conservative.

 

[candycorn]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

I would be real curious to see what you think the role of the SCOTUS is-- So please let us know. Clue: The SCOTUS has nothing to do with whom is a liberal or who is a conservative.

It shouldn't....we'll see how the court responds going forward

 

[oreo]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

I would be real curious to see what you think the role of the SCOTUS is-- So please let us know. Clue: The SCOTUS has nothing to do with whom is a liberal or who is a conservative.

It shouldn't....we'll see how the court responds going forward

I think this ignorance comes from Republican politicians campaiging on the SCOTUS. Good Grief there is already a swing voter on the court. Is the Trump tard memory so short that they forgot it was a G.W. Bush appointment (Justice John Roberts) who was the deciding vote on Obamacare?

Neil Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh are nothing special, and are not what Republicans promised their hysterical constituents in 2016.

Click this link to redirect to another post on this board.
Tomorrow the leftist agenda dies for a generation.

 

[bripat9643]

1. Where does it say that money is not free speech, i.e. its my money I can spend it how I wish
2. The Constitution has done well for over 200 years NOT being twisted by the petty topics of the day

Do I have the right to take out a billboard and post your medical history?

What does that have to do with this discussion?

 

[bripat9643]

What role is that? The Militia clause has no legal implications whatsoever. "Interpreting" the Constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, not change what it says. Morons like you would have us believe that "the people" means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it means in the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

It doesn't matter how many times you prove them to be wrong. They will keep regurgitating their mantras. It gives the semblance of the left having a valid argument, and that's all they care about.

 

[bripat9643]

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

That's what it meant, according to the context and the usage at the time. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar or an idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

Once again, moron, the militia clause is explanatory. It has no legal implications.

 

[bripat9643]

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

 

[rightwinger]

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.

Heller was Rightwing judicial activism rewriting the second amendment

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

Damn Fingerboy

There you go again.....reciting half the amendment

No wonder we need courts

What does the other clause require the government to do?

Organize well regulated militias

 

[rightwinger]

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

You are not well regulated if you are not trained

 

[candycorn]

Nope, it did nothing of the sort. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It's plain English so simple a 2nd grader can understand it?

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

Ask KGB that is his interpretation of what "well regulated" means.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

 

[KGB]

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

So the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked...

well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

Gun owners have a moral responsibility to be trained in a firearm’s proper use, but the government may not require them to do so. Nor may the gvt infringe upon their right to purchase a firearm.

So now our safety depends on the purchaser's morality....great. LOL

Would the same reliance upon someone's morality apply to the clerk at a bank who knows your bank account numbers?

Yes the Oxford Dictionary is cherry picked....

The Oxford Dictionary is the gold standard & recognizes authority of the English language. Their whole purpose is to document & provide meaning to the language writ large. It also tracks meaning of words throughout history. So you can pretty much bank on it.

About | Oxford English Dictionary

To answer your ridiculous question, you do that already. Every time you give your credit card to someone you are extending trust they won’t skim your number.

Your link to it was cherry picked. Citing only supporting evidence is the essence of cherry picking.

No the question is whether it is against the law to publish the credit card number, to sell the credit card number.

Trust is something you're injecting.

Citing supporting evidence is the way we prove things. That’s how research is conducted.

You asked me whether reliance upon someone’s morality at the bank applies. That’s what trust means.

 

[KGB]

It’s open to interpretating it as the Founders originally meant. The Amendment process was put in place to change it. Now we will hopefully have a Supreme Court who will act on the premise of originality in its rulings.

So now anyone who wishes to read the minds of the founders can be the interpreter? Again, what do you think the founders would have said about my publishing your Social Security number or someone's child's failing grades or medical records in the local newspaper?

The Constitution tells the gvt what it may and may not do. That is it’s purpose. It’s purpose is not to tell the people what they may not do.

What are you even talking about regarding publishing personal data? That has nothing to do with the topic.

Hence the Title of the OP. If you enjoy no privacy as afforded by our constitution which is silent on the matter...I can therefore publish all of your private information, sell it to anyone I want, make a mint off of just selling your data to whomever wants to buy it then...right? Any state laws prohibiting such selling/publishing would be unconstitutional as a result.

Right?

It would be criminal because you don’t own that data.

Oh...so it's a matter of ownership. That determines if your data can be transmitted, published, sold, etc... Right?

Yes throughout history, it’s usually been against the law to sell something you don’t own.

 

[KGB]

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

Ask KGB that is his interpretation of what "well regulated" means.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

It’s not my interpretation, it’s the Founders words & what they meant. See my links which clearly demonstrates this.

And no it does not imply that training is required to exercise the individual right either. That said, a responsible gun owner should want to seek out proper training to familiarize themselves with their firearm. It’s called being informed.

 

[KGB]

This is what happens when US history isn’t taught correctly. We just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical gvt. Well regulated meant well trained. We needed to secure the state. That meant in all areas including personal security. It also meant to guard against another tyrannical gvt should it ever arise. The Bill of Rights are a list of individual rights of the People. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a right guaranteed to the people, not the militia. It states it clearly. Case closed

Thats a lot of interpretation you've got there.

"Well regulated meant well trained."

As far as I can tell, you can buy a gun regardless of your firearms training prowess.

No interpretation required. Only facts.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Again, your and your cherry picked website's interpretation. Regardless, it seems as though there are few if any standards for training prior to purchasing a firearm.

Where does the amendment require anyone to be trained to bear arms?

You are not well regulated if you are not trained

Which is not a requirement to exercise the right.

 

[KGB]

1. Where does it say that money is not free speech, i.e. its my money I can spend it how I wish
2. The Constitution has done well for over 200 years NOT being twisted by the petty topics of the day

Do I have the right to take out a billboard and post your medical history?

What does that have to do with this discussion?

Nothing. It’s a juvenile attempt to hijack discussion.

 

[OldLady]

SCOTUS is the final verdict on the Constitutionality of an issue
They also resolve cases elevated from the lower courts

Don't ALL the cases revolve around Constitutionality? I'm not arguing, I thought they did.

 

[OldLady]

However, the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee is Advice and Consent.

He is clearly judicially qualified to sit on the bench.

You seem to be interpreting "advice and consent" in a pretty limited way, i.e. you seem to be suggesting that so long as a nominee has some minimal qualifications that senators are obligated to advance her. I disagree with that. Consent means something stronger than that to me. I don't have any objection to senators rejecting a nominee because of strong disagreements with their judicial philosophy, or because they think the nominee has the wrong temperament for the position, or other relevant reasons beyond legal qualifications. I think in a well-functioning government you would expect some give-and-take on that when the presidency and congress are controlled by competing parties, but I don't think it's different in principle from the way the presidential veto works in that situation. In the same way that congress is not obligated to vote in favor of laws the president favors, so the congress is not obligated to confirm nominees the president favors just because they are minimally qualified.

I do think the Senate ought to have some reasonable obligation to actually provide advice and consent, i.e. I believe they have an obligation to follow the process and either confirm or reject a nominee. I don't think they should refuse to hold hearings or refuse to vote. But it seems proper to me that they exercise their discretion in either approving or rejecting a nominee.

Uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault from 36 years ago does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of denial of the Constitutional mechanism afforded to the sitting president to appoint a judge to a vacant seat in SCOTUS.

That is not why Democrats opposed him, in truth. And the Judiciary Committee and the Senate gave him the seat. That is not what well named was talking about either. Let's not bring that into it. Your thread is almost interesting; let's keep it that way.

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS is the final verdict on the Constitutionality of an issue
They also resolve cases elevated from the lower courts

Don't ALL the cases revolve around Constitutionality? I'm not arguing, I thought they did.

Not sure

 

[Votto]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

We all know what it is for. It is for reinterpreting the 2nd amendment away, killing babies, and empowering unions, and other minority groups that have sold their souls to the DNC

Really it is there to transform the US into a socialist utopia.

This is common knowledge.