Trumps Judges will start to make a difference!
- Thread starter nortatoga
- Start date
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I'll say it again. The most important part of Trump's victory are the courts.
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
Irritating progressives and liberals is a first class entertainment bonus worth noting.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Isn't the supreme court supposed to be neutral. Why are people so excited?
...well, I guess that was the original idea on how the check and balances should work.
...well, I guess that was the original idea on how the check and balances should work.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
There are liberals who have some sort of ideology, some sort of vision, those are the ones that were liberals way before all this non-sense and PC
started. Even those liberals are scared the new liberals that don't really have a fvcking clue of what they want. Whatever the others want, they
want the opposite! ...just like a bunch of brainless whinnies.
MadScientist
.45 acp
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final authority on whether or not a law is constitutional. This article does a good job of noting republicans are not necessarily originalistsIsn't the supreme court supposed to be neutral. Why are people so excited?
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
What we need is less laws. Actually any law in conflict with the constitution or any fundamental natural rights should be put
inside the trash can.
Or simply nobody comply with it. ...but you know how it is... remember when people defended their rights with their actions louder
than with their mouths?
The advantage of the 2A is that it will ultimately protect itself if everything else fails and as it was originally designed. I hope it doesn't get to that.
inside the trash can.
Or simply nobody comply with it. ...but you know how it is... remember when people defended their rights with their actions louder
than with their mouths?
The advantage of the 2A is that it will ultimately protect itself if everything else fails and as it was originally designed. I hope it doesn't get to that.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
I absolutely disagree. Marburg v. Madison (1802) was the point where the court usurped their constitutional role, and nobody fought back citing the Ninth Amendment. Bluntly, “We the people” rule supreme, and that does not mean the mobocracy that the Dem’s call “democracy “.
Ho.
Lee.
SHIT!
Have you all read some of the comments written by the dissenting Judge?
Here are some parts of the article:
“For decades, the Supreme Court has referred to the Second Amendment as a fundamental civil right, comparable to other provisions of the Bill of Rights,” Ho began for the seven judges, citing a 1950 wartime habeas corpus case.
The Supreme Court “has reminded lower courts that fundamental constitutional rights like the Second Amendment ‘are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.’” Ho continued, quoting Justice Antonin Scalia’s historic Heller decision. “And it has rejected attempts to disregard the Second Amendment as ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”
“Yet the Second Amendment continues to be treated as a ‘second-class’ right—as at least three Justices have noted in recent years,” he added. “This case warrants en banc review. It involves a question of exceptional importance—the proper scope of the Second Amendment.”
“Federal law criminalizes all interstate handgun sales, and requires anyone who wants a handgun to obtain it from an in-state dealer,” the seven dissenting judges noted. “As a result, anyone wishing to purchase a handgun from an out-of-state dealer must first have it transferred to an in-state dealer,” infringing upon “the ability of countless law-abiding citizens … to obtain a handgun.”
Ho compared this restriction to a waiting period on gun sales because it takes time to transfer the firearm. He also compared it to a tax “in the form of shipping costs and transfer fees,” noting as an example that “the only dealer with a federal firearms license (FFL) in the District of Columbia imposes a $125 transfer fee.”
Ho compared banning sales on handguns across state lines to banning the sales of books across state lines, which the First Amendment would not allow.
“Law-abiding Americans should not be conflated with dangerous criminals,” Ho concluded, declaring that the federal statute fails strict scrutiny and, therefore, violates the Second Amendment. “Constitutional rights must not give way to hoplophobia.”
This is absolutely amazing! This is the kind of Judge we should have in the Supreme Court.
Lee.
SHIT!
Have you all read some of the comments written by the dissenting Judge?
Here are some parts of the article:
“For decades, the Supreme Court has referred to the Second Amendment as a fundamental civil right, comparable to other provisions of the Bill of Rights,” Ho began for the seven judges, citing a 1950 wartime habeas corpus case.
The Supreme Court “has reminded lower courts that fundamental constitutional rights like the Second Amendment ‘are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.’” Ho continued, quoting Justice Antonin Scalia’s historic Heller decision. “And it has rejected attempts to disregard the Second Amendment as ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”
“Yet the Second Amendment continues to be treated as a ‘second-class’ right—as at least three Justices have noted in recent years,” he added. “This case warrants en banc review. It involves a question of exceptional importance—the proper scope of the Second Amendment.”
“Federal law criminalizes all interstate handgun sales, and requires anyone who wants a handgun to obtain it from an in-state dealer,” the seven dissenting judges noted. “As a result, anyone wishing to purchase a handgun from an out-of-state dealer must first have it transferred to an in-state dealer,” infringing upon “the ability of countless law-abiding citizens … to obtain a handgun.”
Ho compared this restriction to a waiting period on gun sales because it takes time to transfer the firearm. He also compared it to a tax “in the form of shipping costs and transfer fees,” noting as an example that “the only dealer with a federal firearms license (FFL) in the District of Columbia imposes a $125 transfer fee.”
Ho compared banning sales on handguns across state lines to banning the sales of books across state lines, which the First Amendment would not allow.
“Law-abiding Americans should not be conflated with dangerous criminals,” Ho concluded, declaring that the federal statute fails strict scrutiny and, therefore, violates the Second Amendment. “Constitutional rights must not give way to hoplophobia.”
This is absolutely amazing! This is the kind of Judge we should have in the Supreme Court.