MASSIVE WIN! Pelosi PULLS the Assault Weapons Ban! Due to a LACK of DEM votes…

[light12pdr]

The 40+ year old ruling was an “error corrected“. Nothing any place in the COTUS ever mentions abortions.

The Heller and Bruen decisions are the reinforcement of a 234 year old ratification of an expressed COTUS right.

Huge difference therein.

Agree! As a decision on an expressed right, I think the Bruen decision would be harder to get overturned

 

[W2D]

Joe McCarthy did nothing wrong. He is vindicated more and more every day. We should have listened to him, but the communists had already infiltrated the news media by then and successfully demonized his actions.

Joe McCarthy was a Senator, who really DID find traitors in our government. What got the negative attention was the *House* Unamerican Activities Committee.

These two get conflated to make McCarthy the boogie man, when the representatives were arguably grandstanding (big surprise).


Sent from my iBunker using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Doctor_M]

Joe McCarthy was a Senator, who really DID find traitors in our government. What got the negative attention was the *House* Unamerican Activities Committee.

These two get conflated to make McCarthy the boogie man, when the representatives were arguably grandstanding (big surprise).


Sent from my iBunker using Tapatalk Pro

Exactly correct. One of my pet peeves is when Sen. J. McCarthy is lumped in with the House UnAmeican Activities Committee.

 

[Allen65]

Joe McCarthy was a Senator, who really DID find traitors in our government. What got the negative attention was the *House* Unamerican Activities Committee.

These two get conflated to make McCarthy the boogie man, when the representatives were arguably grandstanding (big surprise).

Is there some particular media outlet that's pushing the whole McCarthy revisionism meme in the past few days or weeks? I'm seeing McCarthy related discussions several places and was wondering where it started.

 

[lazarus]

The 40+ year old ruling was an “error corrected“. Nothing any place in the COTUS ever mentions abortions.

The Heller and Bruen decisions are the reinforcement of a 234 year old ratification of an expressed COTUS right.

Huge difference therein.

No it really isn’t. SCOTUS can rule the sky is red and oranges are actually apples. There is NOTHING in the constitution/separation of powers saying they can’t.

It’s just like what is reasonable. What is reasonable depends on the person.

How you interpret the law is in the eye of the judge. No two people are likely to agree completely on everything. Even if they have identical education, training, and political view points.

There is absolutely nothing stopping a future court from deciding that THT is wrong and Bruen and Heller were wrong.

Zero.

Previously with only extremely rare decisions like Korematsu has SCOTUS ever violated Stare Decisis and over turned a prior Supreme Court decision.

Dobbs DOES open the floor gates for future courts to do the same. Especially when you are in hyper partisanship. Add in the court absolutely signaled it wants to roll back other decisions.

You’d have to be really naive to think if a future court switches 5:4 towards liberals Bruen/Heller being revisited isn’t in the cards. States like NY and CA will almost certainly learn the right’s lesson and in the next few years pass trigger laws on guns if Bruen and Heller get overturned. Likely the moment the court switches they’ll legislate stuff they think has a snowballs chance of SCOTUS taking up to overturn them again.

And THT will NOT survive a future liberal court, 100% guaranteed.

 

[lazarus]

Is there some particular media outlet that's pushing the whole McCarthy revisionism meme in the past few days or weeks? I'm seeing McCarthy related discussions several places and was wondering where it started.

Lol. I was wondering the same thing. I can take a few guesses why.

At any rate, sure McCarthy did a handful of things right. He did a HELL of a lot wrong though. Just like Nixon did a few right things. And also a large number of criminal things.

 

[Occam]

Previously with only extremely rare decisions like Korematsu has SCOTUS ever violated Stare Decisis and over turned a prior Supreme Court decision.

From the late 1700's through 2020, the SCOTUS has reversed precedent over 140 times.

 

[RoadDawg]

No it really isn’t. SCOTUS can rule the sky is red and oranges are actually apples. There is NOTHING in the constitution/separation of powers saying they can’t.

It’s just like what is reasonable. What is reasonable depends on the person.

How you interpret the law is in the eye of the judge. No two people are likely to agree completely on everything. Even if they have identical education, training, and political view points.

There is absolutely nothing stopping a future court from deciding that THT is wrong and Bruen and Heller were wrong.

Zero.

Previously with only extremely rare decisions like Korematsu has SCOTUS ever violated Stare Decisis and over turned a prior Supreme Court decision.

Dobbs DOES open the floor gates for future courts to do the same. Especially when you are in hyper partisanship. Add in the court absolutely signaled it wants to roll back other decisions.

You’d have to be really naive to think if a future court switches 5:4 towards liberals Bruen/Heller being revisited isn’t in the cards. States like NY and CA will almost certainly learn the right’s lesson and in the next few years pass trigger laws on guns if Bruen and Heller get overturned. Likely the moment the court switches they’ll legislate stuff they think has a snowballs chance of SCOTUS taking up to overturn them again.

And THT will NOT survive a future liberal court, 100% guaranteed.

As I said…

“The Heller and Bruen decisions are the reinforcement of a 234 year old ratification of an expressed COTUS right.

Huge difference therein.”

And yes there is.
One is a right specifically included and ratified in the original COTUS.

The other was a ruling made nearly 200 years later. On a matter never even discussed in any of the writings relative to, or included in, any text of the COTUS as originally ratified.

And that difference stands, regardless of any future ruling that any SCOTUS panel chooses to release.

 

[DC-W]

Stare Decisis is not a hard and fast rule. There’s absolutely no reason a government is someday trying to justify its gun law(s) and a future Supreme Court with a different attitude finds that Heller and its progeny were wrong to hold that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Precedents are revisited all the time and the scope of governmental powers vs individual rights are constantly being evaluated against the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in Roe five decades ago that there was a constitutional right to abortion under the 14th Amendment. Six justices in 2022 said that was wrong and held otherwise.

Take time to read dissents and concurring opinions and you’ll see Justices remarking that certain precedents need to be revisited. All it takes is enough Justices with the will and attitude to decide that a precedent needs to go. That’s it. The Court’s conservatives have been hacking at Establishment Clause precedent in all of these 1A religious cases they’ve heard over the last few terms, with precedent set in Lemon v. Kurtzman pretty much dispensed with. Thomas wants right to privacy (where Roe came from) revisited.

You don’t even have to look that far though. This term, precedent set in McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) was narrowed in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. (It’s complicated. Here’s the Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma)
What changed? The addition of Justice Barrett.

We have three co-equal branches of government and a federal system. We have a federal constitution that can be amended and states likewise have their own. If the people and states will something to be protected or outlawed, they have the means to do so without relying on just one branch of government to do it for them.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

For any Democrat who believes Stare Decisis is a hard and fast rule written in concrete then each Dem who believes that supports slavery, the internment of Japanese-Americans, and probably other defective SCOTUS decisions that were done away with.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

A GVR’d case is the one time an appeals court decision on a non-federal case has nationwide precedent.

Really?

 

[jcutonilli]

From the late 1700's through 2020, the SCOTUS has reversed precedent over 140 times.

234 times according to https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

 

[MDFF2008]

The 40+ year old ruling was an “error corrected“. Nothing any place in the COTUS ever mentions abortions.

The Heller and Bruen decisions are the reinforcement of a 234 year old ratification of an expressed COTUS right.

Huge difference therein.

Respectfully, the difference isn't as big as you think. I think a lot of 2A people are adopting a false sense of security that Bruen, McDonald and Heller are unassailable decisions.

In Heller v. McDonald, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms. Subsequent decisions like Bruen are based on the ideas established in Heller that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

A future Supreme Court simply has to decide that Heller was incorrectly decided and the 2nd Amendment protects the collective right of the State Militias to keep and bear arms, or they could decide the Bruen was incorrectly decided and that although Heller does protect an individual right, the right is subject to Rational Basis review.

Both of which result in a complete gutting of individual 2A rights.

The only real difference is that the Supreme Court cannot delete the actual 2nd amendment, unlike in Dobbs.

 

[Tebonski]

Whenever the democrats get a majority on the Supreme Ct they will rewrite the Constitution to whatever they want. For them the sky is the limit. Actually no limits, gun control, gun confiscation, no limits on abortion, open borders, state censorship, CRT mandatory state dogma, no more right wing conservative talk radio with Fairness Doctrine, school busing, reparations payments, war on police, destruction of United Sates military which is already in progress. Those who dont turn in their firearms will have their social security, healthcare, voters cards, credit cards, drivers licenses all suspended. Think these fascist democrats won’t do this?

 

[RoadDawg]

Respectfully, the difference isn't as big as you >snip<.

The only real difference is that the Supreme Court cannot delete the actual 2nd amendment, unlike in Dobbs.

I’d say that’s a pretty damn big difference.

 

[RoadDawg]

Whenever the democrats get a majority on the Supreme Ct they will rewrite the Constitution to whatever they want. For them the sky is the limit. Actually no limits, gun control, gun confiscation, no limits on abortion, open borders, state censorship, CRT mandatory state dogma, no more right wing conservative talk radio with Fairness Doctrine, school busing, reparations payments, war on police, destruction of United Sates military which is already in progress. Those who dont turn in their firearms will have their social security, healthcare, voters cards, credit cards, drivers licenses all suspended. Think these fascist democrats won’t do this?

Good to see you posting

They aren’t Democrats any longer. And they don’t make any attempt to hide it these days.
DNC … Damned National Communist Party

 

[DC-W]

I’d say that’s a pretty damn big difference.

They just reinterpret the text and the history. Voila. No more legally protected individual right. Vermont’s high court actually did this recently two years ago, finding their RKBA equivalent more protects a collective right for service in a state militia. No text changed. Their constitution predates the American. Just a majority with a different attitude.

Vermont v. Misch

Defendant Max Misch was charged under 13 V.S.A. 4021(a) with two counts of unlawfully possessing a large-capacity magazine. This issue this appeal presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review was whether Vermont’s ban on large- capacity magazines (LCMs) violated the right to bear arms under...

law.justia.com

 

[boothdoc]

The second amendment has truly been treated like the red headed step child right.
The courts ignored years of cases until the recent one was reviewed.

Just like Frosh on the local level when he would top drawer items.

 

[TheLizardKing]

Lol. I was wondering the same thing. I can take a few guesses why.

At any rate, sure McCarthy did a handful of things right. He did a HELL of a lot wrong though. Just like Nixon did a few right things. And also a large number of criminal things.

He did nothing wrong. He is an American hero

 

[teratos]

He did nothing wrong. He is an American hero

The government persecuting people for their ideology protected by the 1A makes someone an American Hero?
McCarthy went way too far and is an example of how dangerous government can be. His actions are neither "American" nor are they heroic.

Spies are one thing, communists another thing entirely. I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.