10-12-2022, 05:04 PM
(10-12-2022, 03:54 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Glad to see you back. I had noticed an absence recently, this place wasn't as active without you. Hope all is well.
Thanks, brother.
(10-12-2022, 04:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Wasn't there a ban o semiautomatics in place until 2004? [I just realize it's in the article] I ask for that could mean that such a law being unconstitutional might be a temporary assessment instead of one set in stone. This is what I'd say, the SC is not so much a guardian for the constituton these days as it is a political branch of government, as political as the other two really. Five liberal judges might very well have a different take an such a law.
Completely correct, and you're almost certainly correct about a more liberal court deciding differently. Of course, the same argument could be made about the Roe v. Wade decision, or pretty much any SCOTUS decision. What makes this different, completely, is that the court just ruled on this issue this exact calendar year. The composition of the court has not changed. Yes, there is a new member, but it's a liberal member replacing a liberal member. There is literally zero chance the current court makes a different finding.
Going further, and outside of the Bruen decision, was the much earlier Heller decision, which was decided in 2008. This specifically forbid the banning of firearms, or arms (e.g. magazines, ammunition, accessories) "in common use". As defined by the less than knowledgeable on firearms Dems (in general) there are well over 20 million "assault weapons" owned by private citizens in the US. This clearly meets the "in common use" standard set forth almost fifteen years ago. This doesn't even require the application of the much more strict interpretation of Bruen. But using just Bruen as the standard, which should be the case as it is now law, an "assault weapons" ban is clearly unconstitutional. The POTUS publicly advocating for the passage of an unconstitutional law is clear grounds for impeachment. It is literally no different than saying he wants to pass a law that forbids women from voting. It's a clear violation of his oath of office.
Quote:Sure I'd also say the constitution is not to be treated like Christians treat the Bible. It is open to interpretation, to a certain bending, and in the end also for being amended. In that sense alone, I think it's fine to demand laws that might not be in line with the constitution in its current form and its current interpretation by a conservative SC. Constitutions and/or interpretations can legitimately change, if the public support is there and the ballot box shows as much for example.
On this you are incorrect. Public support is absolutely not grounds for unconstitutional laws. Remember, this is a sword that cuts both ways. A more liberal person may see this as just defiance to a SCOTUS ruling they disagree with. Now picture that same person decrying a proposed law under a second (god forbid) Trump administration. Consistency is the key here, not what works for you (not you specifically) today but you'll disagree with when it's used against you tomorrow. Either SCOTUS decisions are to be adhered to or they are not, it's not a buffet where you get to take what you like and leave the rest, all the while another person does the exact same thing but with completely different items on their plate. You are certainly correct that things change with time, e.g. Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, but we're talking about the passage of several years, if not decades. Certainly not the passage of a few months.
This does lead us to another interesting topic, which is the "threat to our democracy" that the Dems like to consistently bang the drum to. In fact we hear it frequently here as well. Is not open defiance to a SCOTUS formed completely under the law an direct assault on our democracy? Is not constantly labeling said court as "illegitimate" a direct assault on our democracy? Again, we need to be consistent. Either directly opposing our system is a direct danger to that system or it is not.
Lastly, goddamn you, just when I thought I was out, you dragged me back in!
