The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 18, 2024, 10:35 AM   #51
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by SM
Sotomayor may be on the dim side for a justice. It would not have stopped her from serving as a federal judge or being promoted. There are plenty of incompetent federal judges.
I think it's important for laymen to understand that the ability to perform constitutional or textual analysis isn't itself a task that requires first percentile intelligence. It does generally require education/socialization into the habit of handling the involved concepts.

I don't believe any of the minority voted as they did out of a lack of intelligence, and I don't really have a gripe with Sotomayor over that. I have a problem with her views. She should not think that the Court is there to benefit from her life experience as a "wise latina", and it shows something essentially defective in her view that she would think that's a good idea to express. Imagine if you'd said anything like she had. I would hope that a wise WASP man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a non-white hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life. How would that turn out?

The split in this decision illustrates differences in goals rather than competence. If you think that the language of the law determines the limits of executive regs, the textual analysis that anyone in this thread can do matters. If you think that you sit on the Sup Ct so the nation can have the benefit of your superior wisdom, what Bork called an Olympian view, then deciding a case on what you think people dumber than you should have to accept makes perfect sense, and providing a justification like "if it quacks like a duck" will do. That will hold whether the decision is Wickard or this one.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 18, 2024, 11:45 AM   #52
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,271
To paraphrase (Reagan, I think, and several other folks I'm sure),

"the problem with our opponents is not what they don't know, but that so much of what they do know is wrong!"

If you truly believe that walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck makes it a duck, then by the same logic, you must believe witches are made of wood, and weigh the same as a duck. Monty Python "proved" it!!

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 18, 2024, 01:59 PM   #53
OPC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Posts: 191
I cannot speak to Sotomayor's intelligence never having met her. However, upon first hearing her dissent quoted, I assumed she was (erroneously) referring to the spirit of the law rather than its text.

As written, I believe the law [definition] is based on the mechanical workings of the trigger (multiple discharges per single trigger pull). To me, her confused analogy seemed to attempt to place an inferred intent of the law to regulate the rate of fire. That is, if it's as fast as a machine gun, it must be a machine gun.

I think this is a more dangerous (and disingenuous) attempt at judicial legislation than it first appears.
__________________
José
OPC is offline  
Old June 18, 2024, 06:36 PM   #54
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
I don't believe any of the minority voted as they did out of a lack of intelligence, and I don't really have a gripe with Sotomayor over that. I have a problem with her views. She should not think that the Court is there to benefit from her life experience as a "wise latina", and it shows something essentially defective in her view that she would think that's a good idea to express. Imagine if you'd said anything like she had. I would hope that a wise WASP man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a non-white hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life. How would that turn out?
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read her dissent. In fact, it's exactly what I thought back when she was confirmed and made that "wise Latina" statement. She isn't on the Supreme Court to bring a Latina's family wisdom to bear on a question; she is there to rule on whether a law or a decision is or is not constitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
The split in this decision illustrates differences in goals rather than competence. If you think that the language of the law determines the limits of executive regs, the textual analysis that anyone in this thread can do matters. If you think that you sit on the Sup Ct so the nation can have the benefit of your superior wisdom, what Bork called an Olympian view, then deciding a case on what you think people dumber than you should have to accept makes perfect sense, and providing a justification like "if it quacks like a duck" will do.
Precisely.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 18, 2024, 07:35 PM   #55
s3779m
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Location: Lometa, Texas
Posts: 372
So in a nutshell, what I hope to see come out of this, for one, the ATF needs to follow actual laws, not make up their own rules on what can land someone in jail. Should make their job easier, if congress can not pass a law, then there will be less for the ATF to enforce. I have given up on the ATF ever learning what "shall not be infringed" means, or congress for that matter.
Two, would be nice to see this apply to all federal agencies and departments, immigration seems to immediately spring to mind. Would like to see them concentrate on the letter of the law, and not rewrite agency policy every time there is an administration change. But I might as well ask santa for that pony I never got many many years ago.
Third, if people who have the final say so, do not even have the basic understanding of the physical aspects of what they are ruling on, how in the hell can they rule on complicated matters? Yeah, I know that is a question not a statement, but the statement had too many words not fit for the general public.
Fourth, there have been studies after studies done,(all in the name of something, but not knowledge) on what to ban, where to ban, how hard to make a purchase, why not have a study done on who actually is pulling the trigger? Should make solving a problem easier.

Sorry about the rant, but from what I've been reading and hearing on the evening news, (I listen for the weather), everyone out there thinks this ruling is about bump stocks. This is the only place that gets it. Zukiphile and I think every admin had a summary that absolutely nailed it. Now if we could just get rid of the crazy people who are out there in public.........


Last but not least, thanks to all of you who helped me to understand what exactly it was that the SCOTUS said. The ruling was exactly what many of us had thought, I was surprised to see the SCOTUS got it too.
s3779m is offline  
Old June 19, 2024, 09:34 AM   #56
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by s3997m
Sorry about the rant, but from what I've been reading and hearing on the evening news, (I listen for the weather), everyone out there thinks this ruling is about bump stocks.
The real event is a lot less exciting than Supreme Court allows machine guns!.

Overall, this isn't a bad chapter. Following the LV shooting, there was the 100% predictable race that started before the blood dried to pass through congress a ban of a lot of semiautomatic arms, and confiscation of the remainder when the current owner dies, essentially the same post Newtown bill that got dusted off and offered serially after the kind of news stories that sway the soft middle of voters who seek to have likable views. Those voters are susceptible to the news story pressure and legislative plan that changed laws in Australia and NZ. Here, that post LV legislative move was substantially deflated by the bump stock ban. That ban was also so obvious an overreach that some of us saw it as defective by design.

It stinks that people turned in their property to avoid federal prosecution and that some manufacturers of this item were put out of business by the ban. That injustice is no less an injustice just because I didn't suffer from it. I will confess to something that is irrelevant: I consider bump stocks a toy at best, a dopey sort of thing I'd give away if I were an ammunition vendor. I suspect, but don't know, that select fire is a feature that is desirable primarily because it is restricted (like jewelry quality diamonds), not because it is desirable in itself. Using bump stocks as a legislative crumple zone to deflect the energy behind a more consequential ban sacrificed a pawn for a king, and now we have the pawn back too.

We've come out the other end of the LV shooting with a Sup Ct case interpreting a "single function of the trigger" and affirming the executive place in law making. I see that as momentum in the right direction.

Last edited by zukiphile; June 19, 2024 at 09:56 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.05919 seconds with 9 queries