Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Supreme Court

kansashunterkansashunter Senior MemberPosts: 1,879 Senior Member
I will admit that I am biased just like everyone is. My question is what seems to be coming out about the case this week. I didn't hear all of it but what I did hear seems wrong. I thought the purpose of the court was whether the law is constitutional or not. Some of the questions asked by the judges were about whether we needed this law and how it would help people, HUH. I guess I was just niave that they would apply just the law. :angry:

Replies

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 17,315 Senior Member
    I thought the purpose of the court was whether the law is constitutional or not.

    No partner, you are spot on...it just seems the "justices" , like our other politicians have forgotten what they were hired to do over the years...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    No partner, you are spot on...it just seems the "justices" , like our other politicians have forgotten what they were hired to do over the years...
    :agree::that:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    The purpose and job one (And Only) of a justice is to interpret the law and then make a judgment on whether it is constitutional. When they get to the point of modifying or making laws, they're out of their territory. That's when they should retire and run for congress

    What I'm going to say next may or may not have anything to do with the afore mentioned subject, but you realize too that justices though they don't make law, when they interpret it their interpretation may not be what we think it should be, but once their opinion is put down on paper, it is law. Or rather it is precedence that most judges in a lower court will follow in similar cases. And that's not only the Supreme Court, but any court of appeals.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    A fun side illustration is the fact that Justice Thomas's wife is a well paid lobbyist who was lobbying against health care reform, yet Thomas for some reason didn't think there was any reason he should recuse himself? Wonder which way he'll vote?

    That's nothing compared to Kagan - Obama's Solicitor General, and deeply involved in Obamacare. He's laughing his off that the Republicans didn't stop her from getting on the court.
  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    A friend was dancing with joy about Kagan's appointment. All her reasons had to do with righting old political "wrongs". None had to do with rendering a fair and impartial verdict based on the constitution.
  • LMLarsenLMLarsen Senior Member Posts: 8,337 Senior Member
    All of this apparently is irrelevant, as is the Constitution, based on late comments from our "enlightened" President:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/

    "Unelected group of people"?? I'm gonna go throw up now...
    “A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

    NRA Endowment Member
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    The Supreme court is just as partisan and political as every other branch of government. 8 of the 9 judges basically make up their mind on the "liberal" or "conservative" position on an issue from the start and merely find a way to justify their pre-concieved decision using the constitution and previous legal precedent.

    A fun side illustration is the fact that Justice Thomas's wife is a well paid lobbyist who was lobbying against health care reform, yet Thomas for some reason didn't think there wasany reason he should recuse himself? Wonder which way he'll vote?

    Call it "partisan and political" if you will, but there are five justices that have respected the Second Amendment and all the Bill of Rights, and there were four who could have cared less about these vital aspects of our nation. "Merely" find a way? I think not. Unlike liberals, so-called "conservatives" have strong core values and beliefs. Liberals could care less. It's called progressive thinking. "Merely" using the Constitution? Your words tell me a great deal. There are four justices who do not respect the Constitution.
    This court will do the right thing only because of the conservative members and thinkers. And this is a crucial reason to defeat Obama and the Dems, the SCOTUS choices of the future. Obama's choices have been ludicrous. Look at the big picture and stop the nit-picking.

    a lot.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Call it "partisan and political" if you will, but there are five justices that have respected the Second Amendment and all the Bill of Rights, and there were four who could have cared less about these vital aspects of our nation.

    Those same five justices determined Kelo v. City of New London. You can scratch that respect all of the BOR.

    In reference to the Heller decision, how could the justices go into such detail about the orgin of the 2A, and not give "shall not be infringed" one sentence of consideration? In fact, we got the age old "reasonable regulations" disclaimer.
    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


  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Those same five justices determined Kelo v. City of New London. You can scratch that respect all of the BOR.

    In reference to the Heller decision, how could the justices go into such detail about the orgin of the 2A, and not give "shall not be infringed" one sentence of consideration? In fact, we got the age old "reasonable regulations" disclaimer.

    Huh? I took a quick look at a Wikipedia article on the Kelo case, it was NOT the same five at all. In fact, the conservative justices were in opposition to the majority opinion, of which Ginsberg was included. If I'm wrong, let me know.

    Sorry that the written opinion on Heller doesn't meet your standards. A liberal majority would have voted otherwise.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    It is not judicial activism for the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate if they conclude it is unconstitutional, and just because congress had a majority pass the mandate as law does not mean it is constitutional. It would be activism for the court to conclude that it is unconstitutional and then let it stand. It is so sad that Obama has characterized the court (referring to the conservative judges and anyone who would cast their swing vote) as judicial activist. I find it reprehensible for a president to disrespect the court, but with Obama this is old hat, he has done it before and so why are we surprised that Obama is the antithesis of our founding fathers and the three branches having equal power. I find him very anti American in principle, behavioral demeanor, and intent of purpose and agenda.


    What a dictatorial demeanor!!! Self appointed emperor Obama intimidating the Supreme court which he has no respect for, but will use them when it suits his purpose. How arrogant, how un-american, how he exposes his anti-constitutional nature and agenda. I am so tired of one man telling the people how it is going to be. Let us listen to George Washington and know that we cannot allow Obama another term.

    "Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession...Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master...Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism...If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter...It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

    We don't need Obama to instruct us on what is best as though he is the enlightened and we are in the dark. Hear the words of our first president and heed them. "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." Repeal Obamacare, vote out Obama, because we do not need him to tell us what to do and when to do it.

    Do not listen to Obama but heed the words of George Washington who actually had to fight for this country and lay his life, property and person on the line for liberty. "The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon." Obama is abandoning it!!!! Vote him out and save our liberty.
  • fuzzyjon79fuzzyjon79 New Member Posts: 3 New Member
    The most dangerous thing about the Supreme Court is that they are not accountable to the people. They actually get a very sweet deal when appointed....they have a job for life. Until they decide to retire or they die, they will sit on the bench. In theory, I understand why they're not accountable to the people, but when you legislate from the bench that changes the ballgame.
  • HakkonenHakkonen Member Posts: 251 Member
    Unlike liberals, so-called "conservatives" have strong core values and beliefs. Liberals could care less. It's called progressive thinking.

    Excuse me? That's quite a wide brush you're wielding, there, son.
    "If money is speech, then no money means no speech." --Bill Moyers

    Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and wealth does not trickle down.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    Excuse me? That's quite a wide brush you're wielding, there, son.

    Which liberal core values do you have in mind?
  • HakkonenHakkonen Member Posts: 251 Member
    Let's begin with the basic idea that government can be a force for good. That evil, nasty, liberty-stomping Government is the same organization that employs our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, after all. It requires that food manufacturers adhere to basic safety standards, so that you don't get sick (see: mad cow disease). It paid for a goodly chunk of your education, and if you have children, it's paying for a goodly chunk of theirs, too.

    Let's move on to the idea that the rich and powerful should not be allowed to trample those who are not so rich or powerful; see the horde of financiers who made vast fortunes, and ultimately caused the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression, trading financial instruments they knew would eventually blow up in America's face. See John D. Rockefeller, whose Standard Oil engaged in blatantly unethical and illegal practices to establish a monopoly, and thus catalyzed the whole field of anti-trust law.

    Finally, let us examine the idea that those who have profited most from the investments this country has made in them should be expected to give the greatest returns. It is entirely right and just that a man who makes a million dollars per year should pay more in taxes, both as an absolute dollar value and as a fraction of his income, than a man who makes fifty thousand dollars per year. He has reaped enormous rewards, and some of those rewards should be passed on to ensure that others will enjoy the same opportunities.

    This is hardly an exhaustive list, and I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I support a strong government that guards against threats too great for me to face alone, that reins in the excesses of wealth and power (not that it has a fabulous track record in that department, but there have been some notable victories), and that ensures that everyone contributes to the public good in a measure proportional to their own success.
    "If money is speech, then no money means no speech." --Bill Moyers

    Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and wealth does not trickle down.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    I'm about to plant a garden- - - - - -are you available to talk to it for awhile?
    Jerry
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,269 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    Let's begin with the basic idea that government can be a force for good. That evil, nasty, liberty-stomping Government is the same organization that employs our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, after all. It requires that food manufacturers adhere to basic safety standards, so that you don't get sick (see: mad cow disease). It paid for a goodly chunk of your education, and if you have children, it's paying for a goodly chunk of theirs, too.

    NO, the taxes I pay on my house pays for the schools.

    Let's move on to the idea that the rich and powerful should not be allowed to trample those who are not so rich or powerful; see the horde of financiers who made vast fortunes, and ultimately caused the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression, trading financial instruments they knew would eventually blow up in America's face. See John D. Rockefeller, whose Standard Oil engaged in blatantly unethical and illegal practices to establish a monopoly, and thus catalyzed the whole field of anti-trust law.

    Bill Gates did/does the same thing

    Finally, let us examine the idea that those who have profited most from the investments this country has made in them should be expected to give the greatest returns. It is entirely right and just that a man who makes a million dollars per year should pay more in taxes, both as an absolute dollar value and as a fraction of his income, than a man who makes fifty thousand dollars per year. He has reaped enormous rewards, and some of those rewards should be passed on to ensure that others will enjoy the same opportunities.

    How many employees does the $50,000 man have???

    This is hardly an exhaustive list, and I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I support a strong government that guards against threats too great for me to face alone, that reins in the excesses of wealth and power (not that it has a fabulous track record in that department, but there have been some notable victories), and that ensures that everyone contributes to the public good in a measure proportional to their own success.

    I am much more worried about the people who get back more money than they pay for taxes. I know 2 people who got back all of the taxes I paid in. All of my taxes paid for two deadbeats welfare babies....
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    Let's begin with the basic idea that government can be a force for good.

    This is the point in your manifesto where you start losing your audience, if they know anything at all about history.

    Like every other person who subscribes to your utopian ideology, you have to talk about what government can be...never what it has been. The Soviet Union was still crowing about what the government could do, while their people were standing in line for a sack of potatoes and a liter of cheap vodka...seventy years after the 'experiment' began. Do you think it was their businessmen or all their rich people who drove them into bankruptcy?
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,806 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    ......I support a strong government that guards against threats too great for me to face alone, that reins in the excesses of wealth and power (not that it has a fabulous track record in that department, but there have been some notable victories), and that ensures that everyone contributes to the public good in a measure proportional to their own success.
    Karl Marx--"from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs"...how nice to know we have such a good little Marxist roaming around on here.
    :troll: :vomit:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Oh, my; a diatribe which is straight from Marx. You can take Marx; I'll stick with George Washington. Washington knew of that with which he spoke.

    “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” George Washington
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    Let's begin with the basic idea that government can be a force for good. That evil, nasty, liberty-stomping Government is the same organization that employs our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, after all. It requires that food manufacturers adhere to basic safety standards, so that you don't get sick (see: mad cow disease). It paid for a goodly chunk of your education, and if you have children, it's paying for a goodly chunk of theirs, too.

    Let's move on to the idea that the rich and powerful should not be allowed to trample those who are not so rich or powerful; see the horde of financiers who made vast fortunes, and ultimately caused the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression, trading financial instruments they knew would eventually blow up in America's face. See John D. Rockefeller, whose Standard Oil engaged in blatantly unethical and illegal practices to establish a monopoly, and thus catalyzed the whole field of anti-trust law.

    Finally, let us examine the idea that those who have profited most from the investments this country has made in them should be expected to give the greatest returns. It is entirely right and just that a man who makes a million dollars per year should pay more in taxes, both as an absolute dollar value and as a fraction of his income, than a man who makes fifty thousand dollars per year. He has reaped enormous rewards, and some of those rewards should be passed on to ensure that others will enjoy the same opportunities.

    This is hardly an exhaustive list, and I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I support a strong government that guards against threats too great for me to face alone, that reins in the excesses of wealth and power (not that it has a fabulous track record in that department, but there have been some notable victories), and that ensures that everyone contributes to the public good in a measure proportional to their own success.

    Your "essay" is so full of holes, so full of misinformation and false conclusions, it's not worth much of anyone's time. Your view of the causes of the "Great Depression" is laughable, and displays a total ignorance of of history, fact and economics. John D. Rockefeller was a noted philanthropist, and humanitarian who did lots of good things for this country. Standard Oil was a major employer and investor, helping to keep the economy humming while efficiently serving the country's energy needs at low prices.

    It sure seems to me that education is a good example of government waste. As previously mentioned, my property taxes directly pay for my county's public school system. The feds just seem like a very, very expensive pro-teacher union, squandering money and getting no results whatsoever. The EPA is another expensive fiasco, the list goes on.

    Enough said. In any event, I hardly find your "core values and beliefs" of much validity. You never mention freedom, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, any general philosophical guideline(s) whatsoever. "Big Government is Good" hardly qualifies. You just don't get it.
  • LMLarsenLMLarsen Senior Member Posts: 8,337 Senior Member
    Agreed. Our esteemed neighbor across the Potomac has tried on several occasions over the years to implement such tactics against the wealthy, each without success. First, Annapolis stood up a tax on "luxury" items such as boats and RVs. Guess what happened? People in Maryland stopped buying new boats and RVs, and many workers (I'm sorry, "members of the proletariat") became unemployed as a direct result.

    Then, more recently, Annapolis implemented the same sort of Marxist tax burden described above on people earning above a certain threshold. Guess what happened? Many of them move to Virginia or Pennsylvania!

    Don't get me wrong, Marxist communism is a wonderful approach to life, as long as it is not applied to humans...
    “A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

    NRA Endowment Member
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,561 Senior Member
    633492517915414378-rotary-engine-500x400%5B2%5D.jpg
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,806 Senior Member
    ........It sure seems to me that education is a good example of government waste.
    It's pretty clear that his education was a good example of government waste.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • ghostsniper1ghostsniper1 Banned Posts: 2,645 Senior Member
    I believe old Hack or I mean Hakk, Is one of two liberals here. Only difference is that Alpha isn't a turd and Alpha still has morals and ethics to himself.
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    This quote from Berger's "Government by Judiciary" seems appropriate:

    "No one, so far as my search of the several convention records uncovered, looked to the Court for “leadership” in resolving problems that Congress, the President, or the States failed to solve. That view is a product of post-Warren euphoria. The courts were expected to “negative” or set aside unauthorized action, to “check” legislative excesses, to “restrain” Congress within its prescribed “limits,” to prevent the “usurpation” of power. The Court, in other words, was to act as nay-sayer, not as initiator of policy."
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    Let's begin with the basic idea that government can be a force for good. That evil, nasty, liberty-stomping Government is the same organization that employs our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, after all. It requires that food manufacturers adhere to basic safety standards, so that you don't get sick (see: mad cow disease). It paid for a goodly chunk of your education, and if you have children, it's paying for a goodly chunk of theirs, too.

    Let's move on to the idea that the rich and powerful should not be allowed to trample those who are not so rich or powerful; see the horde of financiers who made vast fortunes, and ultimately caused the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression, trading financial instruments they knew would eventually blow up in America's face. See John D. Rockefeller, whose Standard Oil engaged in blatantly unethical and illegal practices to establish a monopoly, and thus catalyzed the whole field of anti-trust law.

    Finally, let us examine the idea that those who have profited most from the investments this country has made in them should be expected to give the greatest returns. It is entirely right and just that a man who makes a million dollars per year should pay more in taxes, both as an absolute dollar value and as a fraction of his income, than a man who makes fifty thousand dollars per year. He has reaped enormous rewards, and some of those rewards should be passed on to ensure that others will enjoy the same opportunities.

    This is hardly an exhaustive list, and I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I support a strong government that guards against threats too great for me to face alone, that reins in the excesses of wealth and power (not that it has a fabulous track record in that department, but there have been some notable victories), and that ensures that everyone contributes to the public good in a measure proportional to their own success.

    Unmitigated hogwash. So many falsehoods that I hardly know where to start.

    "It" does not give you anything without first taking three times as much away. So we want government to "give" us as little as possible.

    Government was NEVER meant to spread the wealth. This would only serve to remove the incentive to work hard. The only role it should have is to make sure we all have the same opportunities and to ensure a level playing field.

    In order for a capitalist society to work you have to provide incentive to work hard and/or smart. Giving away lots of free stuff at the expense of those who work hard destroys this.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Jeeper wrote: »
    In order for a capitalist society to work you have to provide incentive to work hard and/or smart. Giving away lots of free stuff at the expense of those who work hard destroys this.

    This is really the bottom line, but the argument does not phase the modern liberal, because they don't really believe in capitalism, anyway. They say they do, because it stings them to be compared with the more notorious icons of the utopian ideologies (socialism, Marxism, Maoism, communism, etc.). But, no matter how educated or well read they are, they are still detached from any sort of realistic assessment of what has already happened in earlier attempts at a utopian society. It's always about what could happen, but somehow never does.

    The single thing that every liberal has in common with every other liberal is that they can simply ignore all the corruptions that have prevented all flavors of their ideology from succeeding...every time it has been attempted. The way they ignore the failures of the present administration and congress are all the proof any sane person should need.

    Certainly, they can cite corruption in their opponents, ad infinitum, because it does exist, although to what degree will always be an arguable point. But the main point is that, although both ideologies are riddled with corruption, capitalism works anyway, because it creates wealth that does trickle down enough so that the poor can manage to have the necessities of life. All the utopian ideologies consume wealth, and as wealth declines, so does the standard of living for everybody, until there are no longer enough people producing wealth to take care of everyone.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Call it "partisan and political" if you will, but there are five justices that have respected the Second Amendment and all the Bill of Rights, and there were four who could have cared less about these vital aspects of our nation. "Merely" find a way? I think not. Unlike liberals, so-called "conservatives" have strong core values and beliefs. Liberals could care less. It's called progressive thinking. "Merely" using the Constitution? Your words tell me a great deal. There are four justices who do not respect the Constitution.
    This court will do the right thing only because of the conservative members and thinkers. And this is a crucial reason to defeat Obama and the Dems, the SCOTUS choices of the future. Obama's choices have been ludicrous. Look at the big picture and stop the nit-picking.

    a lot.

    And another good reason to vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it ends up. And a really good reason to not vote for a third party vote stealer.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    I can't wait for election day.:silly::silly:
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
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