SCOTUS

[a fan]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

I was pointing it out years ago. Can’t even say, “you are right, I was wrong.” Something you teach children to do…..they won’t be cowed.

[old salt]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

Boo Hoo The operational word is schadenfreude

Has Biden ordered SEAL Team 6 to take out Trump yet ?

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me ... -immunity/

A Balanced Decision on Presidential Immunity

by CARRIE CAMPBELL SEVERINO, July 3, 2024

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court faced a question of first impression about the scope of a former president’s immunity, if any, from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts. By a 6–3 vote, the majority crafted a sensible rule, balancing the commonsense notion that presidents are subject to liability for private actions with the constitutionally inescapable position that presidents must be able to exercise Article II power without fear of criminal liability or even probes into their motivations.

In the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court noted the threat to a president’s ability to do his job boldly if he were immediately faced with a bevy of lawsuits upon leaving office—something that until recently was almost unheard-of but may be part of the new normal in our current environment of lawfare and polarization. By the Court’s holding, that translated into absolute immunity “[a]t least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers . . . . As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity,” but the Court did not decide whether that immunity would be absolute or presumptive. Presumptive immunity would entail immunity from criminal prosecution unless the government could show that the prosecution would not pose any “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

Going forward, courts determining whether an action is covered by immunity will begin by assessing the president’s authority to take that action under the Constitution. And “once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.”

The Court did not confer immunity for allegations involving Trump’s private, non-official acts, and neither side disputed that unofficial acts committed while in office can be subject to criminal prosecution. Both sides agreed that some of the acts alleged were private, but they disagreed on which ones should be so classified.

The Court’s decision did not undertake anything like a comprehensive categorization of the allegations that arose in the underlying prosecution. Allegations involving President Trump’s discussions with senior Justice Department officials regarding the 2020 election received absolute immunity from prosecution because “nvestigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is the special province of the Executive Branch, and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). But the district court will assess on remand whether and to what extent the rest of the alleged conduct in the indictment is entitled to immunity. Allegations stemming from Trump’s conversations with Vice-President Pence (who acted as both a presidential advisor and as president of the Senate) about the January 6 certification proceeding implicated presumptive immunity, leaving the burden on the government to demonstrate in district court that the prosecution will not endanger executive branch authority and functions. Still other allegations involving interactions with state officials, private parties, and the general public, were remanded for determination on whether the former president’s conduct qualifies as official or unofficial. During oral argument, Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to elicit a concession from Trump’s attorney that allegations about the president’s dealings with private attorneys and a political consultant in connection with the 2020 election were private, but the Court’s decision did not venture that far with its conclusions. Also remanded were the “necessarily factbound” and potentially “challenging” questions of how to characterize Trump’s relevant tweets and January 6 speech to gathered supporters. None of that stopped the dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from glossing over what the Court actually did. The dissent drew the unwarranted conclusions that “the category of Presidential action that can be deemed ‘unofficial’” would be “vanishingly small” and that “n every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Monday’s decision makes clear that courts “may not inquire into the President’s motives” when distinguishing official from unofficial conduct. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry “would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.”

Plenty of critics have objected to the timeline of this litigation, which, regardless of how the Court decided this case, rendered it highly unlikely that Trump would be convicted of any charges before election day. For that we can thank the Justice Department and Jack Smith. They could have brought his prosecution much earlier.

The Court’s decision may undercut Biden’s attempt to use government prosecutors to attack his political rival, but in the long term it will benefit him, as it does Trump, by shielding him from liability for his own actions in office.

[a fan]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

Boo Hoo The operational word is schadenfreude

Has Biden ordered SEAL Team 6 to take out Trump yet ?

Well, now you're on record as loving this decision, and mocking anyone who dares to criticize it.

Great. Goalposts are now set in the ground. We'll come back to this. Remember....you think this is swell, and won't have negative outcomes.

Good for you!

[OCanada]

Boo Hoo The operational word is schadenfreude

Has Biden ordered SEAL Team 6 to take out Trump yet ?

No or it would be done by now. With his new immunity powers easy peasy !

[NattyBohChamps04]

Dems took the high road, far right Republicans took the Supreme Court. Dems continue to take the high road. Not sure that will help our country.

I think it's quite clear we lived in a nation of norms rather than laws and rules.

[dislaxxic]

The "tell" is in the article's last paragraph:

The Court’s decision may undercut Biden’s attempt to use government prosecutors to attack his political rival, but in the long term it will benefit him, as it does Trump, by shielding him from liability for his own actions in office.

It could not be a BIGGER LIE than attempting to assert that Biden is using the DoJ to attack his political rival. Trump and his accomplices are successfully weaponizing lies.

..

[youthathletics]

Maybe she will be changing her dissents on 2A? https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/1810730958896910697

[a fan]

Maybe she will be changing her dissents on 2A? https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/1810730958896910697

Using an out of context quote to to imply that Sotomayor wants to ban all guns (she's not, but who cares, right?)

You left out that the guys were armed....something that would be awful hard to have if guns were banned in the US.

You left out that it was law enforcement who shot their guns.....in what world are we going to disarm law enforcement in the US?

Clickbait, trying desperately to make Sotomayor as a hypocrite.

Total. Fail.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Maybe she will be changing her dissents on 2A? https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/1810730958896910697

Using an out of context quote to to imply that Sotomayor wants to ban all guns (she's not, but who cares, right?)

You left out that the guys were armed....something that would be awful hard to have if guns were banned in the US.

You left out that it was law enforcement who shot their guns.....in what world are we going to disarm law enforcement in the US?

Clickbait, trying desperately to make Sotomayor as a hypocrite.

Total. Fail.

Yup, another painfully dumb effort to make someone look bad or hypocritical. The “bodyguards” were US Marshals, for god’s sake. The perpetrators were armed. If you think about it, even a little, suggestion that guns can and should be regulated makes…sense. But thanks for passing it on.

[youthathletics]

Maybe she will be changing her dissents on 2A? https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/1810730958896910697

Using an out of context quote to to imply that Sotomayor wants to ban all guns (she's not, but who cares, right?)

You left out that the guys were armed....something that would be awful hard to have if guns were banned in the US.

You left out that it was law enforcement who shot their guns.....in what world are we going to disarm law enforcement in the US?

Clickbait, trying desperately to make Sotomayor as a hypocrite.

Total. Fail.

Yup, another painfully dumb effort to make someone look bad or hypocritical. The “bodyguards” were US Marshals, for god’s sake. The perpetrators were armed. If you think about it, even a little, suggestion that guns can and should be regulated makes…sense. But thanks for passing it on.

Except the 2A has a not going anywhere for quite some time, and if the good guys did not have a gun….well you can visualize what may have happened. Facts and current laws matter….to some.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Maybe she will be changing her dissents on 2A? https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/1810730958896910697

Using an out of context quote to to imply that Sotomayor wants to ban all guns (she's not, but who cares, right?)

You left out that the guys were armed....something that would be awful hard to have if guns were banned in the US.

You left out that it was law enforcement who shot their guns.....in what world are we going to disarm law enforcement in the US?

Clickbait, trying desperately to make Sotomayor as a hypocrite.

Total. Fail.

Yup, another painfully dumb effort to make someone look bad or hypocritical. The “bodyguards” were US Marshals, for god’s sake. The perpetrators were armed. If you think about it, even a little, suggestion that guns can and should be regulated makes…sense. But thanks for passing it on.

Except the 2A has a not going anywhere for quite some time, and if the good guys did not have a gun….well you can visualize what may have happened. Facts and current laws matter….to some.

oooh, ooh, I can answer this. If the good guys (well, children in this instance) didn't have a gun? they would have waited while ~400 other "good" guys with a gun stood outside their elementary school while they were murdered by a bad guy with a gun. And those other "good" guys stopped parents from going in too!

what's the next visualization? You like macabre what-ifs.

[a fan]

Maybe she will be changing her dissents on 2A? https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/1810730958896910697

Using an out of context quote to to imply that Sotomayor wants to ban all guns (she's not, but who cares, right?)

You left out that the guys were armed....something that would be awful hard to have if guns were banned in the US.

You left out that it was law enforcement who shot their guns.....in what world are we going to disarm law enforcement in the US?

Clickbait, trying desperately to make Sotomayor as a hypocrite.

Total. Fail.

Yup, another painfully dumb effort to make someone look bad or hypocritical. The “bodyguards” were US Marshals, for god’s sake. The perpetrators were armed. If you think about it, even a little, suggestion that guns can and should be regulated makes…sense. But thanks for passing it on.

Except the 2A has a not going anywhere for quite some time, and if the good guys did not have a gun….well you can visualize what may have happened. Facts and current laws matter….to some.

If America's gun laws are so strict that the good guys (again, these are Federal Marshalls...who do you think is trying to take guns away from them?) didn't have a gun...then neither did the bad guys. Can't have it both ways in your construct.

It's a ridiculous clickbait strawman. Sotomayor doesn't want to take guns from either party. All she said, rightly, is that the 2A is about Militias, and that the right to have guns ain't absolute. That's it. And I'd wager that every person here, including you, agrees with her.

[jhu72]

David French on the republican split over SCOTUS. Saw this a few weeks ago but forgot to post it. French claims MAGA is not happy with SCOTUS. I can believe this.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

All she said, rightly, is that the 2A is about Militias, and that the right to have guns ain't absolute. That's it. And I'd wager that every person here, including you, agrees with her.

Rightly? Oy vey. And I'll take that wager. I'll even give you a trillion billion to one odds.


Baffling takes here sometimes. How did Uvalde make it onto this thread's Bingo card? Or a suggestion, if I understand correctly, that perpetrators of criminal violence with firearms will adhere to gun regulations? Or that banning guns would prevent criminals? Or that because of criminal violence with guns, we need gun regulations - as if we don't already have them? Or that US Marshal's in their SCOTUS protection detail capacity aren't bodyguards (just paid for by taxpayers)?

Kentrell Flowers, 18, is alleged to have committed a violent act with an illegal firearm. If found guilty by a jury of his peers, he deserves to be severely punished.

Justice Sotomayor will continue to enjoy the outsourced protection of her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which most citizens must provide for themselves and their loved ones - or leave to chance/fate. Meanwhile, many politicians, lobbying organizations, and fellow citizens would love to severely curtail or eliminate altogether the right to keep and bear arms of their fellow law abiding citizens. How kind of them. How comforting.

Use your imaginations on the headlines and actions of law enforcement at the scene if the person in the driveway who shot Mr. Flowers was a law abiding gun owner with a legal firearm. He or she would have had their firearm taken away, and likely be scrambling as I type this to justify why when confronted with a violent assailant with a gun they defended themselves. They'd be under the microscope, at the mercy of DAs/prosecutors/judges, and likely in limbo legally and economically for quite some time. Potential racism claims might be made if they were of a different race than the alleged assailant. Their life would be turned upside down and inside out because they protected their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe, maybe not. There is ample precedent regarding just such scenarios.

If only criminals would respect our gun laws. The clear solution is to enact new gun laws and regulations which affect the law abiding. The current 20,000+ ones on the federal, state and local level are just a few away from eliminating criminal violence from society.

[a fan]

All she said, rightly, is that the 2A is about Militias, and that the right to have guns ain't absolute. That's it. And I'd wager that every person here, including you, agrees with her.

Rightly? Oy vey. And I'll take that wager. I'll even give you a trillion billion to one odds.

So now the word militias doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment? I'll drop down my $1000 on that one, my man. When do I get my money?


I'd wager further that you don't believe the right to bear arms is absolute. Another $1000.

And when you realize that you don't believe it's absolute, you don't get to come back with "your example is ridiculous". There isn't a single person in America who thinks that everyone everywhere, at all times gets a gun because the Constitution said so.

I'm reacting to a VERY specific quote made by someone on twitter, Waffle. You're loading a whole mess of stuff into this one comment.

In short: the twitter guy is implying that had Sotomayor had her way, a Federal Marshall wouldn't have a gun. This is clickbait, and stupid.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

All she said, rightly, is that the 2A is about Militias, and that the right to have guns ain't absolute. That's it. And I'd wager that every person here, including you, agrees with her.

Rightly? Oy vey. And I'll take that wager. I'll even give you a trillion billion to one odds.

So now the word militias doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment? I'll drop down my $1000 on that one, my man. When do I get my money?


I'd wager further that you don't believe the right to bear arms is absolute. Another $1000.

And when you realize that you don't believe it's absolute, you don't get to come back with "your example is ridiculous". There isn't a single person in America who thinks that everyone everywhere, at all times gets a gun because the Constitution said so.

I'm reacting to a VERY specific quote made by someone on twitter, Waffle. You're loading a whole mess of stuff into this one comment.

In short: the twitter guy is implying that had Sotomayor had her way, a Federal Marshall wouldn't have a gun. This is clickbait, and stupid.

The 2A isn't about militias in terms of the crucial clauses: the operative and restrictive ones. The prefatory clause which introduces the word militia has nothing to do with the amendment's purpose: to enshrine the right of individuals (the people) to keep and bear arms. If the founding father's are looking down or up or whatever right now they would put their heads together and delete the militia/prefatory clause completely because of the confusion it has caused (don't get me going on "well regulated" meaning), and the weaponization against the 2A as an individual right it has provided activist scholars and judges and a public easily misled by politicians and lobbyists playing a semantic shell game.

The right to bear arms I do believe is absolute in the sense we all have an absolute right to protect our selves, and our loved ones. Those that don't feel that way are either criminals, or individuals who feel they have a right to infringe on my rights despite my peaceful, law-abiding behavior.

The other bits in my post were from other posters as the responses to the original post came in. Didn't mean to conflate their thoughts onto your plate. And I took the twitter post and quote from her Macdonald dissent concurrence to suggest that with the "militia only" collective reading of the 2A then citizens would be helpless against criminals. I didn't make the leap that law enforcement agencies of government would be disarmed by a militia reading of the 2A in that post.

I will bitcoin pay you nothing and you will like it! Off to shop for warships. Will await your rebuttal of my rebuttal's rebuttal so I can rebut. That's how this place works.

[a fan]

The 2A isn't about militias in terms of the crucial clauses: the operative and restrictive ones. The prefatory clause which introduces the word militia has nothing to do with the amendment's purpose: to enshrine the right of individuals (the people) to keep and bear arms. If the founding father's are looking down or up or whatever right now they would put their heads together and delete the militia/prefatory clause completely because of the confusion it has caused (don't get me going on "well regulated" meaning), and the weaponization against the 2A as an individual right it has provided activist scholars and judges and a public easily misled by politicians and lobbyists playing a semantic shell game.

So the word militia doesn't count because you say so?

Yep, it's added confustion, no question.

The right to bear arms I do believe is absolute in the sense we all have an absolute right to protect our selves, and our loved ones. Those that don't feel that way are either criminals, or individuals who feel they have a right to infringe on my rights despite my peaceful, law-abiding behavior.

So you're good if every kid K-12 takes a gun to school?

Or how about someone on trial for murder that has not yet been convicted...sitting in the courtroom?

Or how about planes? Every passenger gets one, right?

Or someone on a White House tours can open carry, right? (actually...maybe that's not a good example ) (kidding, of course)

Or how about serial numbers? Guns should be untraceable, right?

No forms, no fees. No licenses. All of that goes away if it's

Yeah, you don't. So no, it's not absolute, sorry. Now where's my money?

The other bits in my post were from other posters as the responses to the original post came in. Didn't mean to conflate their thoughts onto your plate. And I took the twitter post and quote from her Macdonald dissent concurrence to suggest that with the "militia only" collective reading of the 2A then citizens would be helpless against criminals. I didn't make the leap that law enforcement agencies of government would be disarmed by a militia reading of the 2A in that post.

Correct. You're conflating and we're simply talking past each other.

I'm good with guns, and have told you as much before. Owned one myself. If someone offered me a day a gun range, or to go shoot trap? I'm in.

And I have no interest in taking an American's right to protect their family (with reasonable restrictions), or what I consider to be a right to hunt (with reasonably restrictions, of course).

And neither does Sotomayor...which is why I'm making fun of that Tweet.

I will bitcoin pay you nothing and you will like it! Off to shop for warships. Will await your rebuttal of my rebuttal's rebuttal so I can rebut. That's how this place works.

All in good fun.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

The 2A isn't about militias in terms of the crucial clauses: the operative and restrictive ones. The prefatory clause which introduces the word militia has nothing to do with the amendment's purpose: to enshrine the right of individuals (the people) to keep and bear arms. If the founding father's are looking down or up or whatever right now they would put their heads together and delete the militia/prefatory clause completely because of the confusion it has caused (don't get me going on "well regulated" meaning), and the weaponization against the 2A as an individual right it has provided activist scholars and judges and a public easily misled by politicians and lobbyists playing a semantic shell game.

So the word militia doesn't count because you say so?

Yep, it's added confustion, no question.

The right to bear arms I do believe is absolute in the sense we all have an absolute right to protect our selves, and our loved ones. Those that don't feel that way are either criminals, or individuals who feel they have a right to infringe on my rights despite my peaceful, law-abiding behavior.

So you're good if every kid K-12 takes a gun to school?

Or how about someone on trial for murder that has not yet been convicted...sitting in the courtroom?

Or how about planes? Every passenger gets one, right?

Or someone on a White House tours can open carry, right? (actually...maybe that's not a good example ) (kidding, of course)

Or how about serial numbers? Guns should be untraceable, right?

No forms, no fees. No licenses. All of that goes away if it's

Yeah, you don't. So no, it's not absolute, sorry. Now where's my money?

The other bits in my post were from other posters as the responses to the original post came in. Didn't mean to conflate their thoughts onto your plate. And I took the twitter post and quote from her Macdonald dissent concurrence to suggest that with the "militia only" collective reading of the 2A then citizens would be helpless against criminals. I didn't make the leap that law enforcement agencies of government would be disarmed by a militia reading of the 2A in that post.

Correct. You're conflating and we're simply talking past each other.

I'm good with guns, and have told you as much before. Owned one myself. If someone offered me a day a gun range, or to go shoot trap? I'm in.

And I have no interest in taking an American's right to protect their family (with reasonable restrictions), or what I consider to be a right to hunt (with reasonably restrictions, of course).

And neither does Sotomayor...which is why I'm making fun of that Tweet.

I will bitcoin pay you nothing and you will like it! Off to shop for warships. Will await your rebuttal of my rebuttal's rebuttal so I can rebut. That's how this place works.

All in good fun.

Talking past each other is, from what I can tell, a time honored tradition here! My train of thought or analogies I am well aware sometimes get lost in translation.

Nothing is because I say so. Using the prefatory clause train of thought hypothetical above was an obviously feeble and pathetically attempt to make a point. I said what I said because of how often "militia" and "well regulated" are deployed "disingenuously with purpose" by politicians, lobbying organizations, "researchers" (paid shills), professors (guess who gets published and tenure?), and the media industrial complex. The goal? get low information, easily led, emotionally charged "reasoners", and hive minded hordes whipped up and weaponized to achieve "we need to do something and we're right" performative policy theater regarding the difficult issues that face our society.

The whole gun rights/gun grabbing/gun violence "dialogue" and diametrically opposed and entrenched solution options are just one example of the divide, demoralize, blame, and "do something" mindset which both sides of our political leadership have fine tuned into a art form designed to entrench the electorate, hoover in special interest dollars, and assure reelection. Or something like that. Both sides to blame, while real progress and potential solutions gather dust.

Anyone with 44 minutes who wants to experience a drop the mic explication of 2A and militia's and well regulated and Ruth Bader Ginsberg affirming individual right interpretation feel free. And, no, my research on 2A matters is not from this video. The source documents, jurisprudence, news articles, etc. from before founding to present are my wheel house. It's a good primer that a diphat like smug John Stewart, who poses as a gun subject matter expert, should sit down, having shut up, and watch. And I used to like the guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kXPvkH ... BhupZTCmUn

In the gun/2A slice of this dumpster fire mired in quicksand that is American society today, there are examples aplenty to illustrate the point above I endeavored to make. A deep rabbit hole visit on the AR-15 as "partisan political chew toy" (not my words) is perfect example. Facts about the number of rifles utilized in criminal murder perpetrated by guns (and criminal murder by all means) shows AR fixation is a "do something Macguffin" pointing us away from solutions which could really make a difference, especially in mass pubic shootings. The most recent FBI report just out a month ago confirms handguns - not "assault weapons" (which the director of ATF couldn't even define in front of Congress) as the majority firearm utilized in such criminal acts. Do facts matter when seeking solutions? https://x.com/KateSchweit/status/1805247737052512501

For those of us passionate about firearm rights, safety, education, responsibilities, and the scourge of criminal violence (firearm or not), it is both disheartening and angering to see energy and resources pointed with divisiveness and political capital as the goals of our leaders.

Anyways, lots of questions you pose to me above about schools, planes, and white houses I don't quite comprehend in terms of the core issues regarding a Right. We can both go back and forth with semantic sophistry and syntax slyness, "proving" we're right, but there's no way we aren't too important to have unlimited time for such parlor games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_ ... d_Thinking

I hope, as gummed up as these arguments get on here, that most of us are law abiding folks with decent minds, hearts, and intent, despite differences. Living in this age of bunkered, divided, corrosive and toxic helplessness is killing the spirit of the younger generation. Just like leaders on both sides, and globally, seem to want.

Food for thought. Chilling. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speech ... arvard.htm

And to turn this back to the thread and original Sotomayor post, no I don't trust her regarding individualist reading of 2A rights. Not even one little bit. Call it a gut feeling.

Be well.

[ggait]

Anyone with 44 minutes who wants to experience a drop the mic explication of 2A and militia's and well regulated and Ruth Bader Ginsberg affirming individual right interpretation feel free.

Complete and preposterous gas-lighting bull shirt. STFU troll boy. Post your garbage somewhere else.

Here is what RBG ACTUALLY thought about the 2A you forking moron:

Justice Ginsburg also comments on the past, present and future of the Second Amendment. She cites her dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, and says her "view of the Second Amendment is one based on history."

She continues, "The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia...Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

But, Justice Ginsburg explains, "When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So...the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

As for the Heller case, decided by the Court in 2008, Justice Ginsburg says, "If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/ta ... sburg-says