The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

[Zaac]

Of course they can. Better get your "Blacks" out and do a little research.

case law
noun

1. the law as established by the outcome of former cases.

Case law does not really establish new law. Case law sets precedent in explaining how current law is interpreted where Constitutional, statutory or even regulatory law is vague.

There is no no new law entered on the books as the result of case law. It simply reshapes how the existing law is interpreted.

 

[Salty]

That's absolutely revolting. Just sickening.

(reference the post-birth abortion.

Yes Stefan - it is extremely sickening - and then the next group will be the old and feebel, then the mentally retarded, ect, ect, ect.

 

[Zaac]

Oh come on. You're being deliberately obnoxious.

It was a joke and I'm sure you are aware of that.

I can appreciate the humor of it (I can be obnoxious for kicks, too), but the details are fuzzy.. You know full well that in a common law system cases establish precedent, and that precedent is universally binding if it comes from SCOTUS.

I didn't say anything about it not being universally accepted . I said it did not establish a NEW law.

Thus, SCOTUS has the de facto position of being able to create law through cases. It may not have that authority de jure, but the mere fact that the concept of judicial review as we know it was established in Marbury vs. Madison---case law!

Nope. THAT would be unConstitutional as the judicial branch cannot not establish new law. They make interpretations of EXISTING law in relation to the Constitution.

Thus, SCOTUS as we know it today basically created itself.

Sure, a few legislative remedies exist (expanding the Court like FDR attempted, for one), but we tend to defer to tradition (i.e. precedent), even when it isn't binding.

There is, however, almost nothing to stop SCOTUS from taking a activist approach that reinterprets part of the Constitution to fit an agenda (cf. Wickard v. Filburn). Plus, with the principle of Chevron deference for federal agencies, SCOTUS could go out of its way to make an activist-friendly decision.[/quote]

Sure there is. That's what the checks and balances are for.

I'm not saying that SCOTUS will invalidate Amendments. It can't do that. What it can do is validate laws that violate those Amendments and strike down those that uphold them.

That's STILL not undoing the 2nd Amendment or creating new law.

So can they make law? Not directly, but they can use perfectly-crafted cases for which they can grant cert and can then rule as they wish.

Not even not directly. That can't make law at all.

 

[StefanM]

It was a joke and I'm sure you are aware of that.

Yes, indeed. Both of our statements stand! I can appreciate obnoxious humor, so it's not a big slight fro me. I assure you.

I didn't say anything about it not being universally accepted . I said it did not establish a NEW law.

Variant pronunciations of potato and tomato here. It doesn't create a NEW law de jure, but it has the effect of a new law de facto.

Nope. THAT would be unConstitutional as the judicial branch cannot not establish new law. They make interpretations of EXISTING law in relation to the Constitution.

And activist interpretations have the DE FACTO (not de jure) way of basically creating the equivalent of new law. We may not call it law, but it sure functions like one, minus the review element by a higher body.

Sure there is. That's what the checks and balances are for.

Again de jure vs. de facto. On paper we have them. In practice, we don't. It's like the VP tiebreaking rule in the Senate. It's veeeeery rarely invoked because of filibusters. If you have 60 votes for cloture, you don't have a tie.

In theory, Constitutional Amendments are designed to be a way to make needed changes, but in practice, they are nearly impossible to pass anymore.

Why? Besides the bitter division in the country, you can get quicker change through SCOTUS. That just takes one case.

That's STILL not undoing the 2nd Amendment or creating new law.

It's undermining it. Again de jure vs. de facto. Call it whatever you wish, but it's a change in policy with universal binding force.

Not even not directly. That can't make law at all.

That's why test cases are needed. A test case hit the right court? BAM! Change happens. Sometimes that has been a very good thing, but it has the potential to go the opposite direction.

No credible person would claim that SCOTUS has actual, de jure lawmaking capacity. Of course it doesn't. But the practice of judicial review has become a vehicle through which universally binding change can occur. That may not be "making law," but it is the next best (or better) thing.

I think this is discussion is being driven by technicalities. Legally speaking, no, SCOTUS does not and cannot make law. The same would apply to any court. Practically speaking, SCOTUS can and does make binding decisions that have the force equivalent to law (plus the backing of SCOTUS).

 

[TCassidy]

I'm advocating that if you're that much of a gun diehard

I am not a gun diehard. I am a liberty diehard. I will gladly put my life on the line to protect and defend the liberty my grandchildren will live under. (And unlike many of those who prefer to appease tyranny, I have already put my life on the line and paid my pound of flesh in defense of our country, our future, and our way of life.) "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

you'll probably be killed but by golly, your dead corpse will probably still be grasping your guns

I may be killed, as a free man, in defense of liberty, but that is far, far better than living as a slave under tyranny. I too "prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

 

[TCassidy]

Justice Sotomayor:

 

[Zaac]

Variant pronunciations of potato and tomato here. It doesn't create a NEW law de jure, but it has the effect of a new law de facto.

Does the law on the books change? I said a new law was not being created and there hasn't been a new one created by case law.

And activist interpretations have the DE FACTO (not de jure) way of basically creating the equivalent of new law. We may not call it law, but it sure functions like one, minus the review element by a higher body.

Nope. Still just reinterpreting how the existing law is interpreted in terms of the Constitution where vagueness existed.

Again de jure vs. de facto. On paper we have them. In practice, we don't. It's like the VP tiebreaking rule in the Senate. It's veeeeery rarely invoked because of filibusters. If you have 60 votes for cloture, you don't have a tie.

In theory, Constitutional Amendments are designed to be a way to make needed changes, but in practice, they are nearly impossible to pass anymore.

Why? Besides the bitter division in the country, you can get quicker change through SCOTUS. That just takes one case.

That's why you roll with the punches. The dice roll your way sometimes and others they don't. But no new laws are being created. No new SCOTUS is undoing the 2nd Amendment. That's just fear-mongering.

It's undermining it. Again de jure vs. de facto. Call it whatever you wish, but it's a change in policy with universal binding force.

Call it what you want. It's a change in interpretation in accordance to the Constitution by a majority of the Justices. It isn't a new law.

That's why test cases are needed. A test case hit the right court? BAM! Change happens. Sometimes that has been a very good thing, but it has the potential to go the opposite direction.

Still no new law.

No credible person would claim that SCOTUS has actual, de jure lawmaking capacity. Of course it doesn't. But the practice of judicial review has become a vehicle through which universally binding change can occur. That may not be "making law," but it is the next best (or better) thing.

That's why we craft better laws.

I think this is discussion is being driven by technicalities. Legally speaking, no, SCOTUS does not and cannot make law. The same would apply to any court. Practically speaking, SCOTUS can and does make binding decisions that have the force equivalent to law (plus the backing of SCOTUS).

And that is all I have said. they cannot change or do away with the 2nd Amendment. Sure saying that Hillary will appoint Justices who will do that sounds good as partisan political propaganda. But it's not true and is used just like folks claiming one party or the other is gonna push grandma over the cliff and take her SS.

 

[Zaac]

I am not a gun diehard. I am a liberty diehard. I will gladly put my life on the line to protect and defend the liberty my grandchildren will live under.

Does that liberty extend to women who want to have abortions?

(And unlike many of those who prefer to appease tyranny, I have already put my life on the line and paid my pound of flesh in defense of our country, our future, and our way of life.) "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

And as I've said before, Thank you for your service in the military and as an officer.

I may be killed, as a free man, in defense of liberty, but that is far, far better than living as a slave under tyranny. I too "prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

I think being pro-liberty is just like being pro-life. There has to be consistency and a lack of hypocrisy.

 

[StefanM]

And that is all I have said. they cannot change or do away with the 2nd Amendment. Sure saying that Hillary will appoint Justices who will do that sounds good as partisan political propaganda. But it's not true and is used just like folks claiming one party or the other is gonna push grandma over the cliff and take her SS.

I agree with your comments RE: exaggerations. I would not say that Hillary would do those things to the 2nd Amendment. I'd say she's going to appoint justices likely to adopt a relatively restrictive view of the right to bear arms.

To some, that feels like taking it away, and they speak from a more emotive perspective. I understand why.

But I don't have a dog in the fight, personally, as I don't own firearms, even as I don't necessarily want to see unwarranted restrictions put in place.

 

[Zaac]

I agree with your comments RE: exaggerations. I would not say that Hillary would do those things to the 2nd Amendment. I'd say she's going to appoint justices likely to adopt a relatively restrictive view of the right to bear arms.

To some, that feels like taking it away, and they speak from a more emotive perspective. I understand why.

But I don't have a dog in the fight, personally, as I don't own firearms, even as I don't necessarily want to see unwarranted restrictions put in place.

Possibly. But I get the impression that she, like Obama, simply wants to get "certain" military-styled guns out of people's hands.

Can't say that I disagree with that sentiment. There's too much violence and it's just too easy for folks to murder a lot of folks in a short period with these guns.


I just haven't seen a credible plan to go about collecting said guns if someone did want.

 

[TCassidy]

Does that liberty extend to women who want to have abortions?

All life is precious. I consider the killing of a child, even one still in the womb, to be an act of murder.

I think being pro-liberty is just like being pro-life. There has to be consistency and a lack of hypocrisy.

Are you accusing me of being inconsistent? Or of being a hypocrite?

If so, please give an example.

Thank you.

 

[TCassidy]

But I get the impression that she, like Obama, simply wants to get "certain" military-styled guns out of people's hands.

"Military style" rifles have been illegal in the hands of civilians since the passage of The Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

Can't say that I disagree with that sentiment. There's too much violence and it's just too easy for folks to murder a lot of folks in a short period with these guns.

If you will check the crime stats you will so that no licensed gun owner has ever engaged in a mass shooting. And that licenses gun owners are the most law abiding citizens in the country, with a crime rate (including low level misdemeanors) of just .3%. The crime rate for police officers is 3 times higher than for LTC holders.

Like most gun grabbers, you are trying to take guns away from the wrong people.

 

[Tendor]

No chance of that happening.

Agreed, so why would you want anyone from that party being president since it is full of people with no backbone?

If enough people vote for the Man in the Moon he would win, but this is the real world. It will be either Trump or Clinton. And, of the two, Trump is less dangerous to our liberty than Clinton.

The Man in the Moon does not exist so he will never be president regardless of how many votes he may get. Also, this is the internet, not the real world.

 

[Zaac]

"Military style" rifles have been illegal in the hands of civilians since the passage of The Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

If you will check the crime stats you will so that no licensed gun owner has ever engaged in a mass shooting. And that licenses gun owners are the most law abiding citizens in the country, with a crime rate (including low level misdemeanors) of just .3%. The crime rate for police officers is 3 times higher than for LTC holders.

Most states don't require a license to own a gun. And I wonder how many of those involved in mass shootings got their guns from licensed family members?

More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally
The weapons used in this week's massacre in San Bernardino, California, were purchased legally, raising questions about how preventable gun violence is under current U.S. firearm laws.

Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place. Using that criteria, Mother Jones found 73 mass shootings since 1982.

Mass Shootings Committed By Concealed Carry Killers
May 2007 to the Present (PDF is available)

A mass shooting is defined as the killing of three or more people consistent with the federal definition contained in the “Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012.” The following vignettes describe the circumstances for non-self defense incidents in which private individuals with permits to carry concealed handguns killed three or more persons (not including the shooter) in one incident. The descriptions include the current, known status of any charges filed against the concealed carry killer as reported by news sources as well as noting instances where the perpetrator committed suicide.

The Violence Policy Center welcomes any new information regarding the status of any case (with verifiable source(s)). Use this link to contact the VPC: http://www.vpc.org/contact.htm.

Alabama
Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Michael McLendon SUICIDE
Date: March 10, 2009
People Killed: 11 (including shooter)


Circumstances: On March 10, 2009, Michael McLendon, a self-proclaimed survivalist, killed his mother at their family home, beginning a shooting rampage that stretched across 24 miles. By the time McLendon took his own life in the midst of a police shootout at a factory where he had previously worked, he had shot four more relatives, including his 74-year-old grandmother, and five strangers, including the wife and 18-month-old daughter of a local sheriff’s deputy. McLendon had a concealed handgun permit for two handguns. Police later found at the home he shared with his mother numerous how-to DVDs on committing acts of violence.

Source: “Officials: Alabama shooter depressed over failures,” Associated Press at philstar.com, March 13, 2009.

Connecticut
Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Omar Thornton SUICIDE
Date: August 3, 2010
People Killed: 9 (including shooter)


Circumstances: On August 3, 2010, concealed handgun permit holder Omar Thornton, 34, went on a shooting rampage at the beer distributorship where he worked, killing eight co-workers before taking his own life. The shooting began at a meeting where Thornton, a driver for the distributor, resigned after being shown video evidence of having stolen beer from the company. Then, according one witness in the meeting, “[H]e went out on this rampage. He was cool and calm....

Source: “Man kills 8, self in Connecticut shooting rampage,” Associated Press, August 4, 2010; “Shooter: ‘Tell Everybody I Love Them and Goodbye,’” Associated Press/NBC Connecticut, August 4, 2010; Documents obtained by Violence Policy Center from State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, September 24, 2010.

Florida
Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Pedro Vargas SHOT AND KILLED DURING INCIDENT
Date: July 27, 2013
People Killed: 6


Circumstances: On July 27, 2013, concealed handgun permit holder Pedro Vargas, 42, shot and killed six people at an apartment complex in Hialeah, Florida before being shot and killed by a police SWAT team. Officials identified those killed by Vargas as: Italo Pisciotti, 79; Camira Pisciotti, 69; Carlos Javier Gavilanes, 33; Patricio Simono, 64; Merly S. Niebles, 51; and, Priscilla Perez, 17. The incident began around 6:30 PM when Vargas lit his apartment on fire by burning $10,000 in cash with a combustible liquid. Vargas’s mother, who was in the apartment at the time, fled to safety. Seeing the smoke, building managers Italo and Camira Pisciotti ran toward the apartment....
Source: “Hialeah police chief details tense moments of hostage rescue,” Miami Herald, July 29, 2013; “Little about Pedro Vargas’ life sheds light on motive for Hialeah massacre,” Miami Herald, July 28, 2013; “Shooter Set $10,000 on Fire in Hialeah Shooting Rampage,” nbc6.com, July 28, 2013.

Florida
Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Gerardo Regalado SUICIDE
Date: June 6, 2010

People Killed: 5 (including shooter)


Circumstances: On June 6, 2010, Gerardo Regalado, 38, committed Hialeah, Florida’s worst mass shooting: killing four women and wounding three others at the Yoyito Cafe-Restaurant, a well-liked local restaurant. Regalado’s target was his estranged wife, Liazan Molina, 24. Armed with a 45 caliber pistol, Regalado fired nine times in a shooting spree that witnesses described as total mayhem. “He came in running, like a crazy man…shooting everybody,” screamed one 911 caller, “He came in running and killing.” Authorities said that Regalado specifically targeted women and shot them at close range. Regalado killed himself after the shooting. He had a concealed handgun permit—even though relatives described him as “pure evil” with a history of abusing women and having served “hard time” in a Cuban prison.

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

Like most gun grabbers, you are trying to take guns away from the wrong people.

According to what I'm reading, the very folks you're claiming aren't committing the shootings with the guns are the ones committing the shootings.

 

[Zaac]

All life is precious. I consider the killing of a child, even one still in the womb, to be an act of murder.

you believe that the Constitution affords you the liberty to own guns. They believe that the Constitution allows them the liberty to decide what happens in their bodies.

Are you accusing me of being inconsistent? Or of being a hypocrite?

If so, please give an example.

Thank you.

I'm placing you in that category with most folks who are in the GOP. You may not believe this way, but I think a lot of the folks in the GOP only believe in liberty as much as it aligns with their values and how they want to interpret things.

So an example would be you , i.e. telling a woman she doesn't have the right to have an abortion because you believe it's murder. So the inconsistency arises in believing that your liberty to do what you want to do should trump her liberty.

Another example, again not specific to you, would be gay marriage. We want the liberty to do what we want, but we don't want gay folks to have the same liberty

Now I'm definitely not advocating for gay marriage. But I think you probably get the gist of what I'm saying.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SIX HOUR WARNING

This thread will be closed sometime after 1am Pacific.

 

[TCassidy]

decide what happens in their bodies.

Not their body. It is the baby's body.

I'm placing you in that category with most folks who are in the GOP.

Wrong again. I am not GOP.

So an example would be you , i.e. telling a woman she doesn't have the right to have an abortion because you believe it's murder.

When have I ever told anyone they can't do what they please?

So the inconsistency arises in believing that your liberty to do what you want to do should trump her liberty.

Where did I say that?

We want the liberty to do what we want, but we don't want gay folks to have the same liberty

If that is your stand shame on you. All people should have the liberty to order their lives in any way they please, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

 

[TCassidy]

According to what I'm reading, the very folks you're claiming aren't committing the shootings with the guns are the ones committing the shootings.

5 out of 11 million. Just as I said. Less than .3%. A licensed gun owner is 3 times safer to be around when armed than a police officer.

 

[TCassidy]

Agreed, so why would you want anyone from that party being president since it is full of people with no backbone?

Because he is not beholden to that party. Isn't that the whole point of his candidacy?

 

[Salty]

Thats right - he is an outsider - but knows how the inside works.