Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Latest SCOTUS ruling...

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

Adam J. McCleod


Replies

  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,206 Senior Member
    So, in order to get your 5th Amendment rights invoked, you must first claim them verbally, hope they start teaching that in High School civics.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    So, in order to get your 5th Amendment rights invoked, you must first claim them verbally, hope they start teaching that in High School civics.

    High school civics doesn't exist unless you teach your kids at home.

    On that note...

    I'm on my way to enslave some people. Until they invoke the 13th Amendment, they are weeding, mowing, logging, and repairing my driveway while I go fishing.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    Just for the record it was all the so called "conservative" justices that voted in the majority on this one...

    Wow! You're a smart kid huh...you can count to five.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Just for the record it was all the so called "conservative" justices that voted in the majority on this one...

    Bless your heart. The Supreme Court justices are supposed to be apolitical, and rule only on the constitutionality of a question of law. They got this one wrong................badly. They ruled by how the law has been perverted by overzealous prosecutors over the decades, not by what the Constitution so succinctly states.
    Several presidents have messed with the court makeup through the years, most notably Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat. I *larned* me that juicy bit in American History class in high school, among other juicy bits.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • MississippiBoyMississippiBoy Senior Member Posts: 819 Senior Member
    So the common wisdom for a law-abiding citizen that's been involved in a self-defense shooting is to tell the responding police officers, "I was in fear for my life, and I defended myself.", then wait for a lawyer before saying anything else. But now, would we have to actually say something like, "I'm asserting my right against becoming a witness against myself, so I will now remain silent." in order for the police to not see silence as a sign of guilt?
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    While in a perfect world that would be correct, however you know full well that that's not completely true or otherwise conservatives wouldn't be shaking in their boots praying that Obama doesn't get to nominate another judge. Given that reality it's interesting to note that the two justices Obama nominated voted with the minority while the two justices nominated by Bush voted with the majority with the normal swing vote (Kennedy) voting with them.

    Incidentally a vote along the very same lines stated that you can't sue the government for secretly spying on you.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/26/fisa_supreme_court_says_americans_don_t_have_standing_to_challenge_surveillance.html

    Man, everything is about political labels with you.

    The key and distinguishing trait about conservatives is that they're not affraid or the least bit hesitant to point out criticism aimed toward their own ranks when it concerns the legality, or more importantly, the constitutionality of SCOTUS rulings---regardless of political affiliation. Liberals on the other hand, as you so eloquently demonstrated, always toe the party line no matter if they agree or disagree...."Constitution be damned! My party (liberals); ..always right!"
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    So the common wisdom for a law-abiding citizen that's been involved in a self-defense shooting is to tell the responding police officers, "I was in fear for my life, and I defended myself.", then wait for a lawyer before saying anything else. But now, would we have to actually say something like, "I'm asserting my right against becoming a witness against myself, so I will now remain silent." in order for the police to not see silence as a sign of guilt?
    In that situation always use Miranda. Zip your lip!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    In that situation always use Miranda. Zip your lip!
    You didn't read the article, did you? Saying nothing can be used to imply guilt, per the SCOTUS decision.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    You didn't read the article, did you? Saying nothing can be used to imply guilt, per the SCOTUS decision.
    Prior to arrest. Zip your lip and go to court. Even a public defender could beat this one. SCOTUS be damned. Key word imply.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    You didn't read the article, did you? Saying nothing can be used to imply guilt, per the SCOTUS decision.

    Fifth Amendment protection is no longer implied. You must verbally invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the police. If you just remain silent, that will be used against you.

    Just print up a card with the Miranda warning and the 5th Amendment written on it. Read it to the Po-Po. According to the ruling from the SCOTUS that would cover you. Stinks like a month old gut pile in July, but there it is.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Yeah, that was my point. Being told that saying zip and even a public defender can beat it... is what got us this case.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    And the SCOTUS was supposed to be apolitical from the start, but from the start, they weren't. The history of the SCOTUS is littered with their rulings in which they allowed political or personal leanings to interfere with their job of ruling strictly on the constitutionality of the question of the case before them. They aren't supposed to be conservative, liberal, or any other label; they are required to put all that aside when they rule on a case. But they don't, and that is why their rulings are many times at odds with the constitution.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    And the SCOTUS was supposed to be apolitical from the start, but from the start, they weren't. The history of the SCOTUS is littered with their rulings in which they allowed political or personal leanings to interfere with their job of ruling strictly on the constitutionality of the question of the case before them. They aren't supposed to be conservative, liberal, or any other label; they are required to put all that aside when they rule on a case. But they don't, and that is why their rulings are many times at odds with the constitution.


    This is why it doesn't matter who is elected to the White House. I'm told over and over again that possible SCOTUS appointees are the reason I should vote for a Republican. I could almost buy into this if the Heller decision wasn't followed with "subject to reasonable restrictions". The conservative justices researched 300 years of history and ignored "shall not be infringed". Because of this, nearly every single gun case since Heller has resulted in a lower court ruling against the defendant.

    When did the last significant ruling favor the people and not some government entity? Last time I checked, Dick Heller still couldn't bring his gun home, Susette Kelo lost her home to a private developer, Genovevo Salinas' silence was used against him, and FISA victims have no redress of grievances.

    Piss on all of them.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Fifth Amendment protection is no longer implied. You must verbally invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the police. If you just remain silent, that will be used against you.

    So how about if I just talked about sports?
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Now then. Every president since Andrew Jackson, and possibly before, has used some sort of 'litmus test' when nominating a Supreme Court Justice. Federalists nominated Federalist leaning justices, and Anti Federalists nominated Anti Federalist leaning justices. Then Democrats nominated justices leaning Democrat, and Republicans nominated justices leaning Republican. Then throw in the liberal, progressive, and just plain "the Constitution is a living document that we can change at will" crowd, and you have where we are at now. And the confirmation hearings are a partisan sham that is an embarrassment to the 'advise and consent' meaning. 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments have been attacked with a vengeance. The takings clause has been turned on its head. Rules of evidence are anti defendant and pro prosecution. And on and on ad infinitum.

    I think it's time to either hit the RESET button, or spiral downward into an inevitable dictatorship. How many times do you hear news media talking heads and Congresscritters, and even the President utter the words "our democracy" in any given day? We're supposed to be a republic. It matters.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    We're supposed to be a republic. It matters.

    :up:
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Colombia got a new supreme court the hard way- - - - -the drug runners killed off enough of them that the ones remaining (and their replacements) didn't dare rule against them. At least we haven't gotten to that point- - - - -yet!
    Jerry
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    This lifetime appointment crap has GOT to go...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Many years ago when I read your posts, I thought you were a far out libertarian nut job.
    Now I agree with you, which makes me a far out libertarian nut job, too.
    :up:

    Nut job? Libertarians are the only sane ones left in the political arena....:tooth:
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    I have the right not to be compelled to testify against myself, and if I invoke that right, I am de facto testifying against myself. >Flipping my lips< My head explodes...
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement