SCOTUS on the watch for us

[Racer X]

Tiangou wrote:
[quote=Smote]
[quote=Tiangou]
[quote=Smote]
I see. So, if you don't agree with them, someone elses Rights are disposeable. How very Republican of you.

The rights of corporations to enhance their profits do not trump the civil liberties of the people of the nation.
One of those civil liberties is the Right to Bear Arms. Says it there in the Constitution, in the part called the Bill of Rights, just after the Right to Free Speech.
There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. The text of the amendment and its entire drafting history clearly spell out that the right belongs to militias under the control of state governors.

An activist judge on the take made up the individual right by ignoring half of the text and pretending that the rest implied the individual right. Funny thing: He claimed to be an originalist. But by then everyone paying attention knew that he was a lying sack of sh!t.
Remember, profanity is prohibited by the TOS.

"Use MacResource Forums to disseminate any inappropriate, defamatory, libelous, threatening, infringing, obscene, or unlawful material or information" accuising someone of lying, and then using profanity is a double violation.


All of the Rights are individual Rights. If you feel that strongly about it, please feel free to storm the SCOTUS chambers. Seems to be the thing to do these days when people are disgruntled and befuddled.

And since Heller, Caetano and Bruen, it is a thoroughly settled matter anyway, unless, as I did the math recently, one of those are one of the 1% of cases revisited. And even revisiting doesn't mean revised or reversed.

But since 3 three cases combined, individual Right, in common use (200k makes a firearm or self defense item like a stun gun in common use for lawful purposes, so obviously an AR clone or AK clone counts) and there is no interest balancing anymore. You can't ban firearms, or the components necessary for their functioning. Like magazines of any capacity, or bullets, or stocks that scare you.

And when the "assault weapon" bans are ruled unconstitutional, each and every lawmaker who voted for them is guilty of civil rights violations for depriving their constituents of their Constitutional Rights. That is simply an inescapable conclusion. But they voted themselves immunity, and act with impunity. How convenient for them.

Supreme Court just ruled 9-0, that social media businesses are not responsible for the actions of 3rd party users. This just strengthens the PLCAA of 2005.

If you want to cure social ills, work on the social component. Blame the people causing the ills.

[Tiangou]

Smote wrote:
And since Heller, Caetano and Bruen, it is a thoroughly settled matter anyway...

I seem to recall 5 justices calling Roe v Wade "settled law" before overturning it.

At some point, the wheel comes 'round again and people of good character will be sitting in those seats.

...Or we will continue on this path and the great experiment will end ignominiously, leaving Americans the pariahs of the world.

One or the other.

[Racer X]

Tiangou wrote:
[quote=Smote]
And since Heller, Caetano and Bruen, it is a thoroughly settled matter anyway...

I seem to recall 5 justices calling Roe v Wade "settled law" before overturning it.

At some point, the wheel comes 'round again and people of good character will be sitting in those seats.

...Or we will continue on this path and the great experiment will end ignominiously, leaving Americans the pariahs of the world.

One or the other.
one of those could be one of the 1% that get revisited. Better to approach the social ills, and the root causes of the behavior. That you have some input on.

Scotus can't even make a ruling unless a case comes their way. That's why the 5th Circuit will likely rule the Illinois bans unconstitutional. If they don't, it goes to SCOTUS, and then SCOTUS tossing out bans effects the entire country.

[Acer]

Alrighty then, root causes it is! Let's hear it, and most importantly, let's hear how we're going to fund it.

[pdq]

Root cause: too many guns.

[Acer]

pdq wrote:
Root cause: too many guns.

Enlarging for those who can't see it.

[Ted King]

I just want to point out that the OP in this thread was about EPA interpretations of the Clean Water Act and that one of the primary messages of support for the Supreme Court overruling the EPA is that the Chevron deference (courts should generally defer to administrative agencies when there is need to interpret vague or ambiguous language) precedence from pasts Courts was wrong. Of course, since there is so much focus on some people's part here about over-regulation of guns, the support for doing away with the Chevron deference drifted into another gun discussion.

But I would like to get back to the Chevron deference precedence because it is very likely that this Supreme Court will obliterate that precedence like they did the Roe decision on abortion. As bad as it is for so many people that Roe was overturned, I think throwing out the Chevron deference precedent could easily be much more consequential. It's coming and the consequences will be very substantial. I don't think we are ready for it. I also think this Court majority has no appreciation for the magnitude of the shitshow they are about to release. They are so blinded by their ideologies that they just don't want to see it.

[Racer X]

from a purely legal stanbdpoint, in a lawsuit where the EPA for example, is involved in a lawsuit, since they provide the deffinitions and interpretations to the judge and juries, isn't the deck heavily stacked against the other party? Isn't that a violation of due process?

[Ted King]

Smote wrote:
from a purely legal stanbdpoint, in a lawsuit where the EPA for example, is involved in a lawsuit, since they provide the deffinitions and interpretations to the judge and juries, isn't the deck heavily stacked against the other party? Isn't that a violation of due process?

Our laws are riddled with vagueness and ambiguity. If the agency that administers the laws are not given deference in forming policy, then who should do the interpretation of vague and ambiguous language in the law? Juries? Judges? Neither of them have the expertise of the people in the agencies who have specific education and expertise in the matters being interpreted. Say there is some law about a category of drugs that seems to have vague or ambiguous language to laymen and judges who aren't experts in the field because they don't understand the science behind the language? Should we give juries or judges more deference than expert scientists?

I'm not saying that giving full deference to the administrating agencies always leads to the best outcomes. Nothing is perfect. But I think there is greater risk in general in giving juries and judges more deference in interpreting vague and ambiguous language in laws that are administered by agencies than giving greater deference to the administrating agencies.

[pdq]

Smote wrote:
from a purely legal stanbdpoint, in a lawsuit where the EPA for example, is involved in a lawsuit, since they provide the deffinitions and interpretations to the judge and juries, isn't the deck heavily stacked against the other party? Isn't that a violation of due process?

To me this is a little like saying that judges and enforcement people (like police) always have the deck stacked in their favor because they have more familiarity with the law.

Well, yeah. If you consider that deck-stacking, they do. And people that enforce the law should be expected to have greater familiarity and knowledge of the law. That doesn’t mean that what they say goes, every time.