|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 13, 2013, 11:42 PM | #51 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
Let's remember that Justices aren't appointed via rubber stamp. Article II states that they are appointed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." We do have a say, however indirectly, who gets on the Court.
Can you *imagine* popularly voted supreme court justices? It's bad enough that "the people" get to vote on a President. At least *he* cannot destroy the constitution, at least not directly. But supreme court justices? Whoever promised more bacon (chocolate covered or plain) to the "masses" would win.... and where does anyone think *that* would get us? And for you also, behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate-covered_bacon Willie . |
January 14, 2013, 12:36 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Well, I'm certainly no lawyer, so I'm not taking on Frank.
I would ask his opinion on this analysis from the Cato institute regarding a state's capacity to resist federal intervention. Note that this link has a further link to a PDF at the bottom of the page for the whole article. http://www.cato.org/publications/pol...eid=b8816b9b58 While the original premiss is about Marijuana the author makes reference to the fact that this line of reasoning may hold for other areas as well. This was written well before the current national non-discussion on gun control started. |
January 14, 2013, 01:28 PM | #53 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Ermagherd...shut up and take my guns! Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
January 14, 2013, 01:41 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
Only one tiny point to interject, then we can get back to flying chocolate covered bacon...
Quote:
|
|
January 14, 2013, 02:02 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
I love bacon and I love chocolate, but I have to say chocolate bacon does not do much for me.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
January 14, 2013, 02:04 PM | #56 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
The most famous reversal would be Brown v. Board of Education, but that took over five decades to happen. We don't want to be stuck with that sort of time scale with the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 14, 2013, 02:20 PM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 14, 2013, 02:26 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Texas too.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
January 14, 2013, 03:45 PM | #59 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Most state court judges are elected. Federal judges are not. It's a balancing act either way and a matter of tradeoffs.
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 14, 2013, 04:48 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
The author's thesis is largely uncontroversial; the scope of marijuana use means that federal resources for enforcement against users can not result in a meaningful ban of marijuana use. Further, Congress does not have the authority to treat a state as a mere administrative unit and compel state resources to enforce the federal marijuana ban. So what? Neither of these observations would serve as a defense against federal prosecution. By analogy, you would not stand under a tree during a lightning storm just because the risk was slim though appreciable. Others may take another meaning from this article, but because I see not even an argument that there is protection from federal prosecution in permissive state law, I would draw no sense of security from such law.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 14, 2013, 06:07 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 14, 2013, 07:01 PM | #62 |
Member
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
|
So the people can't be trusted to elect federal judges, but they can elect the people who appoint the judges? I still don't see the logic. What is the purpose?
|
January 14, 2013, 07:28 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
The purpose is the isolation of the judiciary from popular whim. Courts are ideally correct, not popular.
In practice, all judges are elected, with some elected by fewer people than others.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
January 14, 2013, 07:30 PM | #64 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
"We don't want to be stuck with that sort of time scale with the 2nd Amendment."
The most probable way we will have the Second Amendment eroded is when the SCOTUS Justices distinguish the "new" case from the old case. So they will not have to overturn "precedent" or "super-precedent", they merely have to find a fact or two or so and "distinguish" the new case from Heller and McDonald and so it will go. |
January 14, 2013, 10:28 PM | #65 |
Member
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
|
Popular whim? Is that what they call we the people these days? Isolating them from our whims seems to have also isolated them from logically interpreting the constitution.
|
January 14, 2013, 10:41 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
Quote:
Got Dredd Scott mixed up, that's why I added the caveat. |
|
January 14, 2013, 10:45 PM | #67 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Klyph, if you take offense at that, I wonder how you would view what the Founders called it?
Our system of federal government was originally set up to protect both the interests of the whimsical populace, but also the interests of the States themselves. Sadly, the people were conned into giving up any State representation with the passage of the 17th amendment which gave us Senators, elected by the whimsy of the rabble. |
January 14, 2013, 11:31 PM | #68 |
Member
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
|
I'm no political scholar, and perhaps my anger is misdirected, it just seems that power has been centralizing since the republic was founded and there's no end in sight. Corporate personhood really drove a nail in the coffin.
|
January 14, 2013, 11:36 PM | #69 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Of course, whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 15, 2013, 12:09 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Ideally you want judges to decde cases based upon the law. Since judges are people that doesn't happen in practice.
|
January 15, 2013, 02:57 AM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Here's what T. Jefferson had to say about Supreme Court justices. Seems to be the situation we're in today.
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
January 15, 2013, 08:25 AM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
If the question in Heller had been presented to a court popularly elected within the weeks following Sandy Hook, do you think the case might have been decided differently? You made reference to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. You frame the current political issue, as many others do, in terms of corporate personhood. Yet, that is not the basis of the decision. The First Amendment notes that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech. The identity of the speaker is not a component of competent First Amendment analysis. However, in Citizens United Congress made a law abridging the freedom of speech. If the worst I could tell you about the history of Supreme Court decisions was that they correctly apply precedent and the language of the Constitution without regard to popular will, I would be far more sanguine about the state of the court.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 15, 2013, 08:30 AM | #73 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
January 15, 2013, 11:06 AM | #74 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Some posts have disappeared. Let's stay on topic or this thread will be closed.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
January 15, 2013, 02:30 PM | #75 |
Member
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
|
"Shall hold their offices during good behavior"
Who decides when they've crossed the threshold into "bad behavior"? Would a judgment clearly violating the constitution be considered bad behavior? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|