Supreme Court decision

[maniacmechanic]

In My Humble Opinion , they are finaly starting to figure it out :)

http://cbs2.com/national/supreme.court.second.2.1776488.html

[BigEvil]

While its good news, people need to realize that there were 4 justices who think the constitution doesn't exist.

[zondo]

While its good news, people need to realize that there were 4 justices who think the constitution doesn't exist.

At least, once Stevens retires, there will STILL only be 4 that legislate from the bench. I don't see Scalia getting any more liberal than he was after he was appointed.

EDIT:

Post count = 1000

[fire1811]

maybe they will lead to the failure of the FOID card also. You shouldn't be charged for a right.

[drg]

While its good news, people need to realize that there were 4 justices who think the constitution doesn't exist.

Then again if the constitution were so clear-cut, we wouldn't need these cases being decided by the Supreme Court at all. No, either interpretation of the 2nd amendment has a legitimate case for it, and no judicial philosophy is necessarily the correct one. It comes down to a political numbers game. Conservatives have stacked the crap out of the court over the past generation, it's only by some miracle of conscience and conscientiousness that only now are there 5 conservative justices reckless enough to judge based on the conservative political worldview.


At least, once Stevens retires, there will STILL only be 4 that legislate from the bench. I don't see Scalia getting any more liberal than he was after he was appointed.

Actually the record shows the conservative justices have a much stronger record of so-called "bench legislation" aka "judicial activism".

[BigEvil]

WHAT? The constitution is very clear. There are people with agendas who would care to impose them via the bench.

[Destructo6]

Conservatives have stacked the crap out of the court over the past generation, it's only by some miracle of conscience and conscientiousness that only now are there 5 conservative justices reckless enough to judge based on the constitution itself.
There, fixed it for you.

[halB]

WHAT? The constitution is very clear. There are people with agendas who would care to impose them via the bench.


The constitution is clear, the bill of rights only applies to the Federal Government. Barron v. Baltimore. You like originalism, don't ya? Well then, those 4 "liberal" justices were originalists. The Bill of Rights clearly does not apply as a restriction upon the states.

The issue was whether the second amendment should be applied to the states through either the privileges and immunities clause, or the due process clause, of the fourteenth amendment.

You know how you enjoy your fifth, first, fourth, and sixth amendment rights not being violated by the state you live in? Well, you can thank "judicial activism" for that. I mean, those rights weren't even incoroporated when the fourteenth amendment was passed. Hell, the right against self incrimination wasn't incorporated until the sixties or seventies of the twentieth century - during the heyday of "judicial activism."

BTW: you should all be aware that the right to a grand jury indictment for felonies, and the right to a jury trial in civil matters, as well as the right to not have troops quartered in your house, has still not been incorporated to apply to the states.

Really, I mean, REALLY, do you think you have the credentials to sit there and say some of our most educated jurists "don't know the bill of rights"? Especially when you yourself apparently have no idea about Barron v. Baltimore, the fourteenth amendment, or even what due process is.

[bornl33t]

Honestly, it looks like you just barfed a bunch of stuff to make evil look dumb, but none of what you said has anything to do with what evil said. For that matter it looks like you are trying to put words in his mouth?

[cockerpunk]

i think its a great decision. I'm a proponent of some gun controls, but the consistution is very clear that the americans have the right to have weapons.

[Mayvik]

:clap:

1: Guns for everyone
2:
3: Profit!

[maxama10]

The constitution is clear, the bill of rights only applies to the Federal Government. Barron v. Baltimore. You like originalism, don't ya? Well then, those 4 "liberal" justices were originalists. The Bill of Rights clearly does not apply as a restriction upon the states.

The issue was whether the second amendment should be applied to the states through either the privileges and immunities clause, or the due process clause, of the fourteenth amendment.

You know how you enjoy your fifth, first, fourth, and sixth amendment rights not being violated by the state you live in? Well, you can thank "judicial activism" for that. I mean, those rights weren't even incoroporated when the fourteenth amendment was passed. Hell, the right against self incrimination wasn't incorporated until the sixties or seventies of the twentieth century - during the heyday of "judicial activism."

BTW: you should all be aware that the right to a grand jury indictment for felonies, and the right to a jury trial in civil matters, as well as the right to not have troops quartered in your house, has still not been incorporated to apply to the states.

Really, I mean, REALLY, do you think you have the credentials to sit there and say some of our most educated jurists "don't know the bill of rights"? Especially when you yourself apparently have no idea about Barron v. Baltimore, the fourteenth amendment, or even what due process is.
:tard:
:tard: out of :tard:

[zondo]

The constitution is clear, the bill of rights only applies to the Federal Government. Barron v. Baltimore. You like originalism, don't ya? Well then, those 4 "liberal" justices were originalists. The Bill of Rights clearly does not apply as a restriction upon the states.

The issue was whether the second amendment should be applied to the states through either the privileges and immunities clause, or the due process clause, of the fourteenth amendment.

You know how you enjoy your fifth, first, fourth, and sixth amendment rights not being violated by the state you live in? Well, you can thank "judicial activism" for that. I mean, those rights weren't even incoroporated when the fourteenth amendment was passed. Hell, the right against self incrimination wasn't incorporated until the sixties or seventies of the twentieth century - during the heyday of "judicial activism."

BTW: you should all be aware that the right to a grand jury indictment for felonies, and the right to a jury trial in civil matters, as well as the right to not have troops quartered in your house, has still not been incorporated to apply to the states.

Really, I mean, REALLY, do you think you have the credentials to sit there and say some of our most educated jurists "don't know the bill of rights"? Especially when you yourself apparently have no idea about Barron v. Baltimore, the fourteenth amendment, or even what due process is.

honestly HalB, I understand what you're saying because the rest of my family are lawyers and this is like conversations over dinner, but don't throw out legal terms with disdain for the rest of the people here. You want to discuss and debate, then don't be a schmuck.

[halB]

honestly HalB, I understand what you're saying because the rest of my family are lawyers and this is like conversations over dinner, but don't throw out legal terms with disdain for the rest of the people here. You want to discuss and debate, then don't be a schmuck.


Fair enough. I was purposefully being a schmuck. I just respond in kind when people who have no idea what they're talking about try to assign ulterior motives to people they don't like over a decision they don't know.

But seriously, let's start out with this: When the bill of rights was first written, it was designed to only be a restriction on the Federal Government, not a restriction on States.

[halB]

Honestly, it looks like you just barfed a bunch of stuff to make evil look dumb, but none of what you said has anything to do with what evil said. For that matter it looks like you are trying to put words in his mouth?


It seemed like a fair assumption to make that when he said "the constitution is clear" and that people were trying to impose their agenda from the bench, that he was saying that the justices did not know the bill of rights.

[cockerpunk]

Fair enough. I was purposefully being a schmuck. I just respond in kind when people who have no idea what they're talking about try to assign ulterior motives to people they don't like over a decision they don't know.

But seriously, let's start out with this: When the bill of rights was first written, it was designed to only be a restriction on the Federal Government, not a restriction on States.

but that doesn't make any sense. or if it does, then a large number of our freedoms are about to be destroyed. does that mean that states/cities can establish and reinforce religion? how about freedom of assembly and right to a trial with jury? your saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states or any lower form of government?

thats a very scary proposition, and not just for gun owners. i value my freedom from religion and my right to free speech above all others, and your saying that unless the state and local goverment explictly protect that, then those freedoms are in danger?

[Mayvik]

but that doesn't make any sense. or if it does, then a large number of our freedoms are about to be destroyed. does that mean that states/cities can establish and reinforce religion? how about freedom of assembly and right to a trial with jury? your saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states or any lower form of government?

thats a very scary proposition, and not just for gun owners. i value my freedom from religion and my right to free speech above all others, and your saying that unless the state and local goverment explictly protect that, then those freedoms are in danger?

The key is when it was originally written. There were only 13 states then, and many had similar Bills of Rights. As the country and lawbooks expanded in size, things were not necessarily as compatible anymore. The 14th Amendment with due process and privileges/immunities, and recent cases citing it, have slowly started enforcing that freedoms granted via the Bill of Rights are indeed meant to be applicable to all citizens of the US, and proof to me that they not likely to be destroyed. They may be "further regulated within reason", as this case pointed out, and should those regulations be deemed unreasonable as they inevitably will (soon, as Dbag Daley is already planning...), there will be more cases for SCOTUS to rule on.