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

[candycorn]

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.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

 

[candycorn]

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.

So now, your interpretation of “well trained” doesn’t mean training…. Wow.

 

[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?

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Prove? No; it is the way you strengthen your argument. Research is something totally different.

 

[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.

Putin done it.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

Yes, and the role of SCOTUS is to make sure laws passed by Congress are CONSTITUTIONAL....including the amendments.

If you don’t like the Constitution, get additional amendments.

Please brush up on Civics. You are embarrassing yourself.

For example, the first AMMENDENT is part of the CONSTITUTION that the SCOTUS rules on.

If you want the Constitution changed, get it ******* changed.

2/3 vote in the house and the senate ratifies a Constitutional amendment. Get it done.

****Generic insult redacted******

An amendment that is passed is Constitutional by definition. An Amendment is a change to the Constitution and when the Constitution is changed...get it?

 

[2aguy]

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?

For the left, the Supreme Court is a mini-Legislature...where 5, unelected, politically appointed, left wing lawyers can pass social policy without losing seats in congress....

 

[hunarcy]

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?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[hunarcy]

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

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

Cute, but inaccurate.

 

[rightwinger]

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

NRA Propaganda

 

[bripat9643]

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."

That's what the term means, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't require it, dingbat.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So now, your interpretation of “well trained” doesn’t mean training…. Wow.

He said it doesn't mean it's required, you brain damaged moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Notice that you couldn't state it accurately. It doesn't use the word "organize." The militia clause commands nothing.

 

[KGB]

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.

So if I give it away for free we’re not selling it and of course, you’re cool with your information being given out? Neat.

I work for a hospital system; we create stuff all the time about patients; We own it. Can we sell it?

You don’t own a patient’s personal data. The patient does. You use the data in the course of your work. I guess you never heard of HIPAA....

 

[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.

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.

So now, your interpretation of “well trained” doesn’t mean training…. Wow.

Try to follow along....it’s not my interpretation. It’s how the authority on the English language defined it.

 

[sakinago]

Beyond just restating the court's constitutional role as an arbiter of the constitution and one part of a system of checks and balances between the branches of government, I think the most important role the court has played over the last ~100 years is in progressively moving closer and closer to actually realizing some of the ideals found in the Declaration of Independence, e.g. in recognizing that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really ought to be a right enjoyed by all.

Expanding the actual protection of rights to more and more people has tended to involve defending the ideal against a hegemonic culture that has often rejected rights in practice for various groups, whether African Americans, women, LGBTQ people, and so on. The court has also played an important role in expanding individual liberty against various authoritarian impulses, especially with regard to the first amendment during the course of the 20th century.

I think the court also ought to play a role in defending the democratic process from being eroded in various ways, i.e. by strongly protecting voting rights and rejecting gerrymandering schemes, and taking a stronger interest in the corrupting influences of money on the process. I think the court has failed more often than not lately in that regard.

All of the above in my view relates directly to the court being a custodian of the spirit of the constitution (e.g. I find "originalist" presuppostions dubious, for a number of reasons) and that ideal which the Declaration so eloquently states.

Here is the perception difference between conservatives and progressives. I appreciate the citing of the DOI as thendocument to which we derive our principle’s from, coming from a progressive. The DOI states clearly that rights do not come from government, rather they come from the “creator” (or nature if you’d rather, it’s a natural law philosophy). It’s governments role to protect those natural rights, not to give them out (they no longer are rights in that case). That’s the difference between the sides. We need to get back to paying attention to the 9th and 10th amendments. It’s where we’ve seen the biggest violation of the constitution, and is the root of almost all our problems.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Oh man! Thanks so much! We needed a thread started by a moron RW nut telling us what we perceive the role of the SC is. I can't wait to read what all of your moron pals have to say about what I think.

Your originality will be recognized by all. We've never had a thread like this before.

 

[SmokeALib]

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?

Oh man! Thanks so much! We needed a thread started by a moron RW nut telling us what we perceive the role of the SC is. I can't wait to read what all of your moron pals have to say about what I think.

Your originality will be recognized by all. We've never had a thread like this before.

Speaking of morons, perhaps you can enlighten us with your worthless leftist traitor opinion of the function of the SC...

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Oh man! Thanks so much! We needed a thread started by a moron RW nut telling us what we perceive the role of the SC is. I can't wait to read what all of your moron pals have to say about what I think.

Your originality will be recognized by all. We've never had a thread like this before.

Speaking of morons, perhaps you can enlighten us with your worthless leftist traitor opinion of the function if the SC...

Why would I do that? You already know, don't ya? Go ahead. Tell everyone what I think.

 

[SmokeALib]

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?

Oh man! Thanks so much! We needed a thread started by a moron RW nut telling us what we perceive the role of the SC is. I can't wait to read what all of your moron pals have to say about what I think.

Your originality will be recognized by all. We've never had a thread like this before.

Speaking of morons, perhaps you can enlighten us with your worthless leftist traitor opinion of the function if the SC...

Why would I do that? You already know, don't ya? Go ahead. Tell everyone what I think.

You don't think. You take.