John Paul Stevens: "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" - Page 3

Crankgrinder · March 27, 2018, 09:00 PM

My point is people who don't believe in the Bill of rights should not be sworn in to uphold it. They have no business being supreme court judges. I don't have too much faith in the legal system so I'm not a judge, or a cop for that matter. Leave public office to people that can seem themselves fit for it. Dont claim to be capable of impartial ruling when you know full well its hogwash .

Evan Thomas · March 27, 2018, 09:20 PM

Crankgrinder, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, isn't sacred text. That's why the founders, in their wisdom, included a mechanism for changing it. There is no contradiction between "believing in the Bill of Rights" and thinking that some parts of it could usefully be changed.

In fact I'd argue the opposite -- ONLY someone who genuinely believes in the rule of law would bother to advocate for changing it by established procedures. The folks who don't believe in the rule of law -- just go around it.

SonOfScubaDiver · March 27, 2018, 09:26 PM

They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not agree with everything that's in it or how it gets interpreted by others. It's no different than policemen who agree to enforce the law regardless of their personal feelings about the merits of such laws.......or soldiers......or any other public servants.

Crankgrinder · March 27, 2018, 09:44 PM

It's been reestablished here many times about the entitlement to opinions. Mine is he's a dirtbag. pure and simple. As is a cop who imposes laws on other people but goes home and breaks them himself. He had every opportunity to say "i don't agree with x,y and z and thus cannot impartially rule accordingly" . Instead what did he say? He said "I xXxX do solemnly swear and before the end came the words..uphold and....impartial...and constitution of the United States." Pure and simple the guy is dishonest. He's a liar and he can't be trusted not with a seat on the supreme court and an astronomical salary not with fifty cents definitely not with my civil rights or yours. No the Bill of rights isn't sacred text and sure it's open to change or, being rewritten, or abolished and it's that kind of thinking means it probably will be especially if people like this judge are the ones trusted to its ruling and especially if the majority of the people continues to say its okay for people like that to hold those positions. I'll tell you this I've lived a certain way my whole life and I'm not about to change it because some people persuaded some judges and politicians to say that I must so that they can feel safe. I won't compromise on that.You? You can turn in your guns if you like.

WyMark · March 27, 2018, 10:07 PM

I realize that this is an exercise in futility, but what the heck.

He's RETIRED from the bench. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Heller. He never lied about anything. Stating that he's a liar or somehow dishonest because he has a different interpretation of text in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution is blatantly stupid. That's what the Supreme Court is there to do: argue about the meaning and interpretation of those very things.

Scalia and Ginsberg disagreed on virtually every ruling and were best friends, how could they disagree on those rulings on the interpretation of the Bill of Rights without calling each other a dishonest liar? Because they aren't/weren't idiots, that's why.

I don't think this is a concept that you are capable of grasping.

Evan Thomas · March 27, 2018, 10:16 PM

OK. This one is done.

March 27, 2018, 09:20 PM	#52
Evan Thomas Senior Member Join Date: July 7, 2008 Location: Upper midwest Posts: 5,631	Crankgrinder, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, isn't sacred text. That's why the founders, in their wisdom, included a mechanism for changing it. There is no contradiction between "believing in the Bill of Rights" and thinking that some parts of it could usefully be changed. In fact I'd argue the opposite -- ONLY someone who genuinely believes in the rule of law would bother to advocate for changing it by established procedures. The folks who don't believe in the rule of law -- just go around it. __________________ Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.

March 27, 2018, 10:16 PM	#56
Evan Thomas Senior Member Join Date: July 7, 2008 Location: Upper midwest Posts: 5,631	OK. This one is done. __________________ Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.

March 27, 2018, 09:00 PM	#51
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	My point is people who don't believe in the Bill of rights should not be sworn in to uphold it. They have no business being supreme court judges. I don't have too much faith in the legal system so I'm not a judge, or a cop for that matter. Leave public office to people that can seem themselves fit for it. Dont claim to be capable of impartial ruling when you know full well its hogwash .

March 27, 2018, 09:26 PM	#53
SonOfScubaDiver Senior Member Join Date: October 1, 2017 Posts: 391	They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not agree with everything that's in it or how it gets interpreted by others. It's no different than policemen who agree to enforce the law regardless of their personal feelings about the merits of such laws.......or soldiers......or any other public servants.

March 27, 2018, 09:44 PM	#54
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	It's been reestablished here many times about the entitlement to opinions. Mine is he's a dirtbag. pure and simple. As is a cop who imposes laws on other people but goes home and breaks them himself. He had every opportunity to say "i don't agree with x,y and z and thus cannot impartially rule accordingly" . Instead what did he say? He said "I xXxX do solemnly swear and before the end came the words..uphold and....impartial...and constitution of the United States." Pure and simple the guy is dishonest. He's a liar and he can't be trusted not with a seat on the supreme court and an astronomical salary not with fifty cents definitely not with my civil rights or yours. No the Bill of rights isn't sacred text and sure it's open to change or, being rewritten, or abolished and it's that kind of thinking means it probably will be especially if people like this judge are the ones trusted to its ruling and especially if the majority of the people continues to say its okay for people like that to hold those positions. I'll tell you this I've lived a certain way my whole life and I'm not about to change it because some people persuaded some judges and politicians to say that I must so that they can feel safe. I won't compromise on that.You? You can turn in your guns if you like.

March 27, 2018, 10:07 PM	#55
WyMark Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2011 Location: Wyoming Posts: 647	I realize that this is an exercise in futility, but what the heck. He's RETIRED from the bench. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Heller. He never lied about anything. Stating that he's a liar or somehow dishonest because he has a different interpretation of text in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution is blatantly stupid. That's what the Supreme Court is there to do: argue about the meaning and interpretation of those very things. Scalia and Ginsberg disagreed on virtually every ruling and were best friends, how could they disagree on those rulings on the interpretation of the Bill of Rights without calling each other a dishonest liar? Because they aren't/weren't idiots, that's why. I don't think this is a concept that you are capable of grasping.