Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[lazarus]

You're right - it's way, way worse. Look what they did to General Flynn.

Prosecuted him for lying to the FBI? Was the investigation crap? Sure, but the evidence was, he did in fact lie to the investigators. Which is, last I checked, a no-no. They shouldn’t have been running the investigation, but he also should have told it straight. But Trump pardon him for lying, so squared in the end I guess.

Some of the stuff you mentioned about Biden needs to be investigated. A lot of the other stuff you mentioned like Mar a lago, uhhh, evidence is, Trump broke the law. Should that not be investigated? Both sides investigate the crap out of the other when they are in office. If there is real evidence of crimes, that should be pursued and indictments handed down if there is enough evidence that under the constitution and the law a crime was committed.

As an example, Clinton and the Embassy stuff, worthy of investigation, but the Republican committee in the end did not find evidence of criminal acts and made no referrals as such. Unconscionable stuff sure, but not criminal. There is a difference.

Mar a Lago, Trump kept classified documents. A shit load. That’s not remotely in doubt. It appears he kept most of it knowingly, and more evidence is coming out he knew he didn’t declassify it and couldn’t “with a thought”. Especially not after he was out of office. And much evidence points to him refusing to turn it over when he was informed of stuff he had. And some evidence he may have provided access to people without clearance. It keeps looking worse for him. I don’t know if it warrants an indictment and prosecution. Sounds like he broke a bunch of laws. If so, he should be prosecuted.

The hunter Biden shit, I hope he gets prosecuted. If Biden is too corrupt or the people around him too corrupt to do it, then the next administration. Unfortunately selective prosecution is not a crime or unconstitutional. And Biden could pardon him, unfortunately. Hell, Clinton did with his brother and law. Trump did with a lot of people who were lying to cover for him in various investigations (ex. Flynn, Stone), whether those investigations were righteous or not, it was clear they lied to federal agents.

On exactly what you proposed though on charging and throwing the various legislators and AGs in prison, other than in your head, what crimes have they committed? As several have pointed out, unfortunately Bruen DOES leave wiggle room. Sure on its face SB1 and other laws are clearly unconstitutional. Clearly to a reasonable person and violates a Supreme Court decision are different things. And a solid 50+% of Americans probably believe things like SB1 are fine and don’t violate Bruen (maybe more than half of Americans aren’t reasonable people?) They do not violate a decision, because there is wiggle room in Bruen. If you don’t believe that, than prior to Dobbs a LOT of conservative state AGs and legislators should have been charged and convicted in many states over abortion bans they continued trying to pass for decades with many that absolutely violated prior Supreme Court decisions in Casey and Rowe v Wade.

But we don’t actually do that in our democracy.

 

[Garet Jax]

Prosecuted him for lying to the FBI? Was the investigation crap? Sure, but the evidence was, he did in fact lie to the investigators. Which is, last I checked, a no-no. They shouldn’t have been running the investigation, but he also should have told it straight. But Trump pardon him for lying, so squared in the end I guess.

All that's fair. Didn't Clinton lie to investigator's too about her server, the number of emails she had and where or not she was still running it? How about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden about the involvement with the Chinese and that stupid laptop? Didn't everyone lie about the stupid Dossier?

There was plenty of evidence about the cheating involved in the election.

I am just saying that the right is terrible about making the left pay for their indiscretions and we need to change that. [EDIT] I am also saying the left has "manufactured" news stories out of nothingburgers because they own the media. They have also "manufactured" charges and convictions out of these nothingburgers (General Flynn is a great example).

We can't even generate news stories out of actual news worthy stories and we can prosecute/convict folks when they actually commit crimes.

 

[Occam]

Prosecuted him for lying to the FBI? Was the investigation crap? Sure, but the evidence was, he did in fact lie to the investigators. Which is, last I checked, a no-no. They shouldn’t have been running the investigation, but he also should have told it straight. But Trump pardon him for lying, so squared in the end I guess.

Did you actually look at the transcripts of the trial, including what the FBI admitted was the nature of that "lying?" They had a transcript of a call, and then months and months later, asked him if they could pop in and talk ... no, sir, you won't need a lawyer or your notes or calendar or anything like that, no, it's just a chat ... and then asked him about it and used differences between his recollection and the transcript as a basis for saying he lied. The actual notes from the agents who DID THE INTERVIEW explicitly said they found him truthful and that there was no there, there. The decision to prosecute him on the "lie" was made upstairs, and entirely for political reasons. He agreed to sign off on a plea deal because they said they'd ruin his son's family/finances if he didn't. All of this conduct by the FBI because public record, and trashed the already stupidly meaningless case against him. The judge was a hardcore partisan with TDS, and dragged it out for as long as possible, even when the FBI/DOJ told him that they wanted to drop all charges, and undo the prosecution with its coerced plea deal. This is all public record. Reading the details is downright horrifying.

 

[Occam]

All that's fair. Didn't Clinton lie to investigator's too about her server, the number of emails she had and where or not she was still running it? How about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden about the involvement with the Chinese and that stupid laptop? Didn't everyone lie about the stupid Dossier?

There was plenty of evidence about the cheating involved in the election.

I am just saying that the right is terrible about making the left pay for their indiscretions and we need to change that.

The right isn't running the DOJ or the FBI. And while Trump was running the executive branch, a whole upper-middle layer of entrenched partisans in those organizations were actively working against his administration. The right can't be terrible at doing something when "the right" isn't even represented in the agency management layers that were pulling the strings.

Now that's all out in the daylight, but that's not helpful when the same people handling Biden are also handling the DOJ, the FBI and the rest. Nothing the GOP can do will make the difference you're looking for, though keeping the left's BS out in the sunlight every day between now and the next election may help to get some lazy Republicans out to vote.

 

[coinboy]

Prosecuted him for lying to the FBI? Was the investigation crap? Sure, but the evidence was, he did in fact lie to the investigators. Which is, last I checked, a no-no. They shouldn’t have been running the investigation, but he also should have told it straight. But Trump pardon him for lying, so squared in the end I guess.

Some of the stuff you mentioned about Biden needs to be investigated. A lot of the other stuff you mentioned like Mar a lago, uhhh, evidence is, Trump broke the law. Should that not be investigated? Both sides investigate the crap out of the other when they are in office. If there is real evidence of crimes, that should be pursued and indictments handed down if there is enough evidence that under the constitution and the law a crime was committed.

As an example, Clinton and the Embassy stuff, worthy of investigation, but the Republican committee in the end did not find evidence of criminal acts and made no referrals as such. Unconscionable stuff sure, but not criminal. There is a difference.

Mar a Lago, Trump kept classified documents. A shit load. That’s not remotely in doubt. It appears he kept most of it knowingly, and more evidence is coming out he knew he didn’t declassify it and couldn’t “with a thought”. Especially not after he was out of office. And much evidence points to him refusing to turn it over when he was informed of stuff he had. And some evidence he may have provided access to people without clearance. It keeps looking worse for him. I don’t know if it warrants an indictment and prosecution. Sounds like he broke a bunch of laws. If so, he should be prosecuted.

The hunter Biden shit, I hope he gets prosecuted. If Biden is too corrupt or the people around him too corrupt to do it, then the next administration. Unfortunately selective prosecution is not a crime or unconstitutional. And Biden could pardon him, unfortunately. Hell, Clinton did with his brother and law. Trump did with a lot of people who were lying to cover for him in various investigations (ex. Flynn, Stone), whether those investigations were righteous or not, it was clear they lied to federal agents.

On exactly what you proposed though on charging and throwing the various legislators and AGs in prison, other than in your head, what crimes have they committed? As several have pointed out, unfortunately Bruen DOES leave wiggle room. Sure on its face SB1 and other laws are clearly unconstitutional. Clearly to a reasonable person and violates a Supreme Court decision are different things. And a solid 50+% of Americans probably believe things like SB1 are fine and don’t violate Bruen (maybe more than half of Americans aren’t reasonable people?) They do not violate a decision, because there is wiggle room in Bruen. If you don’t believe that, than prior to Dobbs a LOT of conservative state AGs and legislators should have been charged and convicted in many states over abortion bans they continued trying to pass for decades with many that absolutely violated prior Supreme Court decisions in Casey and Rowe v Wade.

But we don’t actually do that in our democracy.

We don't live in a democracy.

We live in a republic.

 

[Doctor_M]

It always boggles my mind how many people don't understand that.

 

[44man]

It always boggles my mind how many people don't understand that.

The left has been pushing “communism “ thru democracy by teaching kids in the indoctrination camps, public schools, that your vote counts directly because we live in a “democracy “.

Since they don’t explain that generally we vote for representatives who are supposed to represent us and that makes us a constitutional republic

Those that are elected represent us, or at least they are supposed to

That’s how it was explained to me in school back in the day anyway

 

[lazarus]

We don't live in a democracy.

We live in a republic.

A distinction without a difference in terms of the described actions proposed. Neither are compatible with those forms of government.

Your statement is like claiming a truck is not an automobile. Democracy is an umbrella term. Republic is a specific form of democracy.

 

[lazarus]

It always boggles my mind how many people don't understand that.

Because a republic is a form of democracy. A representative democracy. As opposed to a direct democracy.

Or were you not paying attention in civics/American government. Sure, some don't understand what the difference is between the two.

 

[lazarus]

The left has been pushing “communism “ thru democracy by teaching kids in the indoctrination camps, public schools, that your vote counts directly because we live in a “democracy “.

Since they don’t explain that generally we vote for representatives who are supposed to represent us and that makes us a constitutional republic

Those that are elected represent us, or at least they are supposed to

That’s how it was explained to me in school back in the day anyway

Depends on the state. Many states, including Maryland, have limited direct democracy. You vote on ballot initiatives.

But most of our government is representative. I can't recall anytime I've ever heard in school your vote counts directly. Not something my kids have ever relayed to me that their teachers or their materials (and I've helped them study/do homework) have had that your vote counts directly, and they are in some of the most liberal of public schools in liberal ass Howard county. Maybe there is some teacher saying that crap. Sure a lot of "your vote counts, so go vote" stuff. Which, isn't that what people should be told? Or do we not want participation in elections and in government?

 

[coinboy]

A distinction without a difference in terms of the described actions proposed. Neither are compatible with those forms of government.

Your statement is like claiming a truck is not an automobile. Democracy is an umbrella term. Republic is a specific form of democracy.

On the contrary.

Just because one incorporates the word of another does not mean they are the same thing.

In a democracy, the rights of the minority can be voted away by the majority.

In a republic, the rights of the minority are protected by both the representatives and the constitution.

So no. They aren't the same.

 

[Apd09]

Depends on the state. Many states, including Maryland, have limited direct democracy. You vote on ballot initiatives.

But most of our government is representative. I can't recall anytime I've ever heard in school your vote counts directly. Not something my kids have ever relayed to me that their teachers or their materials (and I've helped them study/do homework) have had that your vote counts directly, and they are in some of the most liberal of public schools in liberal ass Howard county. Maybe there is some teacher saying that crap. Sure a lot of "your vote counts, so go vote" stuff. Which, isn't that what people should be told? Or do we not want participation in elections and in government?

Only the people in a handful of swing states in the presidential election ever get to have their votes truly ever count.
But I much prefer the electoral college to popular vote and having NY, CA, and other places like that controlling the vote every year. At least with electoral college you can overcome it. But popular vote is much harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Biggfoot44]

On the contrary.

Just because one incorporates the word of another does not mean they are the same thing.

In a democracy, the rights of the minority can be voted away by the majority.

In a republic, the rights of the minority are protected by both the representatives and the constitution.

So no. They aren't the same.

In a * Constitutional * Republic , the Rights of the minority are protected by the Representatives and a durable founding document .

All Republics aren't necessarily constitutional ones .

 

[lazarus]

In a * Constitutional * Republic , the Rights of the minority are protected by the Representatives and a durable founding document .

All Republics aren't necessarily constitutional ones .

This too.

But Coinboy, a Republic IS a democracy. Sounds like maybe school of the media failed you?

The first definition in most dictionaries is even "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Wikipedia even has a nice article to help you with all of the different types of democracies.

A constitutional representative democracy even being one of them.

Types of democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CrueChief]

Yes but our system only works for a moral and religious people. We are currently neither and heading in the wrong direction.

John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.

 

[Apd09]

This too.

But Coinboy, a Republic IS a democracy. Sounds like maybe school of the media failed you?

The first definition in most dictionaries is even "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Wikipedia even has a nice article to help you with all of the different types of democracies.

A constitutional representative democracy even being one of them.

Types of democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I’m not sure at any point in the history of the internet that a facts vs volume debate was ever won by actual facts.

It’s the internet and if someone can continually yell their opinion louder than an actual fact used to educate and counter said opinion it automatically makes them the winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lazarus]

Only the people in a handful of swing states in the presidential election ever get to have their votes truly ever count.
But I much prefer the electoral college to popular vote and having NY, CA, and other places like that controlling the vote every year. At least with electoral college you can overcome it. But popular vote is much harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only ever does a person's vote matter when they are the 50%+1 vote, the one vote more than the most votes for the candidate depending on if it is most votes or majority votes.

But "all votes matter" in that if people ain't voting, then them and the ten, hundred, thousand, hundred thousand people who decided not to vote. Or vote for a different candidate were all part in deciding who was elected. It would be the same way in a direct democracy, or ballot initiative, etc.

Even in an oligarchy plurality is all that matters (whether there is titular voting, or it is plurality of power/influence), not generally one individual.

If it is popular vote, it isn't NY, CA, etc. controlling it. It is the majority of the people in the country. Yup, most happen to be located in populace states like NY and CA, and thus tend to be liberals. Part of the push/pull is that the majority of people in the country ARE liberals. Because most people live in urban areas, and that is the one thing most likely to determine your world view/politics is urban vs suburban vs rural. So liberal policies, on a federal/national level have a majority of support for most of the stuff. But conservatives have the most representation by land area, because again, most rural people tend to be conservative.

It is one of the things the 17th amendment eroded some. Direct election of senators. That means that the only way that states can attempt to hang on to conservative senators, is by suppressing urban votes (or by passing measures that only encourage or make it easier for rural voters to vote). An example was the mass criminalization started under Nixon over drug users and making them disqualified to vote. Because urban populations, and thus liberals/democrats, are generally growing faster than rural populations. Gerrymandering can only help in the house, it cannot help in the senate. Though if things are gerrymandered badly enough, it also tends to suppress voting (Maryland, for example, seems to have a slightly lower rate of registered Republicans voting compared to a number of leans Republican, or Republican heavy states).

As an example of this, Texas, 2000, Kay Bailey Hutchison (Incumbent) won with 65% of the vote. 2020, John Coryn only scraped 53.5% of the vote. Generally, those vote trends have held pretty steady the last few decades (since at least the early 90s) where Republican state wide office holders seem to be typically losing a percent or two of the vote every election. Also not surprisingly, this is correlated with rapidly increasing urban population centers in Texas. A lot of other Republican states have been suffering a similar fate.

 

[lazarus]

I’m not sure at any point in the history of the internet that a facts vs volume debate was ever won by actual facts.

It’s the internet and if someone can continually yell their opinion louder than an actual fact used to educate and counter said opinion it automatically makes them the winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You and your facts. Lol

 

[Apd09]

You and your facts. Lol

It’s the rules of the internet.

Al Gore wrote them when he created the internet. And as we all know, if it’s on the internet or on TV it must be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob A]

We don't live in a democracy.

We live in a republic.

If we can keep it.

The foundation has been much nibbled on over the decades.