SCOTUS

[Peter Brown]

I’m giving you the tools to clean up society. So go do it. What’s holding you back?

The Constitution. But we've already figured out that you think we're only bound to parts of that document.

But sure, let's start playing your "papers please" in suburban and rural America. I promise you that there are millions of illegally held guns that have been passed down from generation to generation. Start where there are lots of white people. They'll just LOVE your idea.

So you’re a ‘respectful constitutionalist’ when it comes to sweeps for **illegal* guns in inner cities (‘we can’t do that, c’mon, 4th amendment illegal search and seizure!’), but you’re conveniently anti-constitution rolling back #2A for *legal* guns.

‘All you guys with illegal guns, you’re free to go; all you guys with legal guns, hand them over’.

Interesting. Revealing. Predictable.

For the record, I was asking a serious question. A fan is right: the Constitution impedes the “sweep” you seem to envision. So you haven’t given me a single tool, yet. I know you are deeply wedded to the narrative you need, but almost all of us as Americans and virtually everyone I know who identifies as “left” are only liking for balance in respect to gun ownership and regulation. No one has said “you guys with illegals firearms are free to go. The rest of you, we want your guns.” That’s just a stupid thing to say; you must see that. So again, how do you propose to “sweep” up the illegals firearms — in a way that is consistent with the Constitution you pretend to revere?

You were asking a serious question, and that's appropriate, however, you're not asking that of a "serious", much less honest, person.

I can’t recall the last time you offered anything here worthwhile replying to, but I do think it’s incumbent upon me to remind others here that you’re the same guy who’s plaintively desperate to sit in judgment of others, while proudly belonging to country clubs for squash and tennis which expressly forbid blacks as members. Always helpful to recall who were dealing with.

If your have anything substantive to add, you should try that instead; people might respect you.

[Peter Brown]

I’m giving you the tools to clean up society. So go do it. What’s holding you back?

The Constitution. But we've already figured out that you think we're only bound to parts of that document.

But sure, let's start playing your "papers please" in suburban and rural America. I promise you that there are millions of illegally held guns that have been passed down from generation to generation. Start where there are lots of white people. They'll just LOVE your idea.

So you’re a ‘respectful constitutionalist’ when it comes to sweeps for **illegal* guns in inner cities (‘we can’t do that, c’mon, 4th amendment illegal search and seizure!’), but you’re conveniently anti-constitution rolling back #2A for *legal* guns.

‘All you guys with illegal guns, you’re free to go; all you guys with legal guns, hand them over’.

Interesting. Revealing. Predictable.

For the record, I was asking a serious question. A fan is right: the Constitution impedes the “sweep” you seem to envision. So you haven’t given me a single tool, yet. I know you are deeply wedded to the narrative you need, but almost all of us as Americans and virtually everyone I know who identifies as “left” are only liking for balance in respect to gun ownership and regulation. No one has said “you guys with illegals firearms are free to go. The rest of you, we want your guns.” That’s just a stupid thing to say; you must see that. So again, how do you propose to “sweep” up the illegals firearms — in a way that is consistent with the Constitution you pretend to revere?

A ‘sweep’ might sound draconian but it’s not actually not unconstitutional if done correctly. ‘Broken windows’ wasn’t unconstitutional and this is basically that.

The purpose for my proposing an inner city sweep isn’t because I think it’s going to be accepted, but to illuminate the hypocrisy of the left. If anyone was sincere about reducing gun violence, your first instinct would be to remove ILLEGAL guns from the inner cities. This is 80%+ of the problem. But the left won’t go there because they’d lose their base.

So when I hear the left bang on about guns, it rings hollow. They want to deny legal gun owners their right of self defense, that’s it. I even offered you a few easy fixes to the school shootings. But I don’t see your reply: no handguns or semi automatics until 21; from 21-30, provide bi-annual evidence you’re not a lunatic.

When you want to get serious about gun violence in America, let me know.

[jhu72]

^^^ not serious about anything other than pulling his crank in public.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I’m giving you the tools to clean up society. So go do it. What’s holding you back?

The Constitution. But we've already figured out that you think we're only bound to parts of that document.

But sure, let's start playing your "papers please" in suburban and rural America. I promise you that there are millions of illegally held guns that have been passed down from generation to generation. Start where there are lots of white people. They'll just LOVE your idea.

So you’re a ‘respectful constitutionalist’ when it comes to sweeps for **illegal* guns in inner cities (‘we can’t do that, c’mon, 4th amendment illegal search and seizure!’), but you’re conveniently anti-constitution rolling back #2A for *legal* guns.

‘All you guys with illegal guns, you’re free to go; all you guys with legal guns, hand them over’.

Interesting. Revealing. Predictable.

For the record, I was asking a serious question. A fan is right: the Constitution impedes the “sweep” you seem to envision. So you haven’t given me a single tool, yet. I know you are deeply wedded to the narrative you need, but almost all of us as Americans and virtually everyone I know who identifies as “left” are only liking for balance in respect to gun ownership and regulation. No one has said “you guys with illegals firearms are free to go. The rest of you, we want your guns.” That’s just a stupid thing to say; you must see that. So again, how do you propose to “sweep” up the illegals firearms — in a way that is consistent with the Constitution you pretend to revere?

A ‘sweep’ might sound draconian but it’s not actually not unconstitutional if done correctly. ‘Broken windows’ wasn’t unconstitutional and this is basically that.

The purpose for my proposing an inner city sweep isn’t because I think it’s going to be accepted, but to illuminate the hypocrisy of the left. If anyone was sincere about reducing gun violence, your first instinct would be to remove ILLEGAL guns from the inner cities. This is 80%+ of the problem. But the left won’t go there because they’d lose their base.

So when I hear the left bang on about guns, it rings hollow. They want to deny legal gun owners their right of self defense, that’s it. I even offered you a few easy fixes to the school shootings. But I don’t see your reply: no handguns or semi automatics until 21; from 21-30, provide bi-annual evidence you’re not a lunatic.

When you want to get serious about gun violence in America, let me know.

You still seem to be avoiding my questions (and ddefaulting to your silly rigamarole). What is Broken Windows and how is/was it constitutional? If you’re talking about a search, the predicate for which is urban disrepair, I’d like you to be clear.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/05/1 ... use-crime/

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/50010450 ... went-wrong



In 2006, Harcourt found the evidence supporting the broken windows theory might be flawed. He reviewed the study Kelling had conducted in 2001, and found the areas that saw the largest number of misdemeanor arrests also had the biggest drops in violent crime.

Harcourt says the earlier study failed to consider what's called a "reversion to the mean."

"It's something that a lot of investment bankers and investors know about because it's well-known and in the stock market," says Harcourt. "Basically, the idea is if something goes up a lot, it tends to go down a lot."

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/05/1 ... use-crime/

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/50010450 ... went-wrong



In 2006, Harcourt found the evidence supporting the broken windows theory might be flawed. He reviewed the study Kelling had conducted in 2001, and found the areas that saw the largest number of misdemeanor arrests also had the biggest drops in violent crime.

Harcourt says the earlier study failed to consider what's called a "reversion to the mean."

"It's something that a lot of investment bankers and investors know about because it's well-known and in the stock market," says Harcourt. "Basically, the idea is if something goes up a lot, it tends to go down a lot."

Thanks TLD. And this:

“Harcourt says there was another big problem with broken windows.

"We immediately saw a sharp increase in complaints of police misconduct. Starting in 1993, what you're going to see is a tremendous amount of disorder that erupts as a result of broken windows policing, with complaints skyrocketing, with settlements of police misconduct cases skyrocketing, and of course with incidents, brutal incidents, all of a sudden happening at a faster and faster clip."

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/05/1 ... use-crime/

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/50010450 ... went-wrong



In 2006, Harcourt found the evidence supporting the broken windows theory might be flawed. He reviewed the study Kelling had conducted in 2001, and found the areas that saw the largest number of misdemeanor arrests also had the biggest drops in violent crime.

Harcourt says the earlier study failed to consider what's called a "reversion to the mean."

"It's something that a lot of investment bankers and investors know about because it's well-known and in the stock market," says Harcourt. "Basically, the idea is if something goes up a lot, it tends to go down a lot."

Thanks TLD. And this:

“Harcourt says there was another big problem with broken windows.

"We immediately saw a sharp increase in complaints of police misconduct. Starting in 1993, what you're going to see is a tremendous amount of disorder that erupts as a result of broken windows policing, with complaints skyrocketing, with settlements of police misconduct cases skyrocketing, and of course with incidents, brutal incidents, all of a sudden happening at a faster and faster clip."

Just poor people. They shouldn’t be poor and in cities. If they live in Chappaqua or Larchmont, then they wouldn’t be complaining.

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/05/1 ... use-crime/

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/50010450 ... went-wrong



In 2006, Harcourt found the evidence supporting the broken windows theory might be flawed. He reviewed the study Kelling had conducted in 2001, and found the areas that saw the largest number of misdemeanor arrests also had the biggest drops in violent crime.

Harcourt says the earlier study failed to consider what's called a "reversion to the mean."

"It's something that a lot of investment bankers and investors know about because it's well-known and in the stock market," says Harcourt. "Basically, the idea is if something goes up a lot, it tends to go down a lot."

Thanks TLD. And this:

“Harcourt says there was another big problem with broken windows.

"We immediately saw a sharp increase in complaints of police misconduct. Starting in 1993, what you're going to see is a tremendous amount of disorder that erupts as a result of broken windows policing, with complaints skyrocketing, with settlements of police misconduct cases skyrocketing, and of course with incidents, brutal incidents, all of a sudden happening at a faster and faster clip."

Just poor people. They shouldn’t be poor and in cities. If they live in Chappaqua or Larchmont, then they wouldn’t be complaining.

Exactly: whiners.

[cradleandshoot]

Part of the new anti gun laws signed by Gov Hochul requires new rifles to micro stamp the rounds put out through a rifle. The problem is, as reported by our local news this morning... Micro stamping technology doesn't exist and isn't even known to be possible with present technology.

[MDlaxfan76]

I’m giving you the tools to clean up society. So go do it. What’s holding you back?

The Constitution. But we've already figured out that you think we're only bound to parts of that document.

But sure, let's start playing your "papers please" in suburban and rural America. I promise you that there are millions of illegally held guns that have been passed down from generation to generation. Start where there are lots of white people. They'll just LOVE your idea.

So you’re a ‘respectful constitutionalist’ when it comes to sweeps for **illegal* guns in inner cities (‘we can’t do that, c’mon, 4th amendment illegal search and seizure!’), but you’re conveniently anti-constitution rolling back #2A for *legal* guns.

‘All you guys with illegal guns, you’re free to go; all you guys with legal guns, hand them over’.

Interesting. Revealing. Predictable.

For the record, I was asking a serious question. A fan is right: the Constitution impedes the “sweep” you seem to envision. So you haven’t given me a single tool, yet. I know you are deeply wedded to the narrative you need, but almost all of us as Americans and virtually everyone I know who identifies as “left” are only liking for balance in respect to gun ownership and regulation. No one has said “you guys with illegals firearms are free to go. The rest of you, we want your guns.” That’s just a stupid thing to say; you must see that. So again, how do you propose to “sweep” up the illegals firearms — in a way that is consistent with the Constitution you pretend to revere?

You were asking a serious question, and that's appropriate, however, you're not asking that of a "serious", much less honest, person.

I can’t recall the last time you offered anything here worthwhile replying to, but I do think it’s incumbent upon me to remind others here that you’re the same guy who’s plaintively desperate to sit in judgment of others, while proudly belonging to country clubs for squash and tennis which expressly forbid blacks as members. Always helpful to recall who were dealing with.

If your have anything substantive to add, you should try that instead; people might respect you.

What the heck are you talking about Petey?
I'm not a member of any such club.

Dishonest again.

[ggait]

End of term opinions coming from SCOTUS on tomorrow/Monday, and those opinions will continue to drop over the next 2-3 weeks.

Regardless of your political and Constitutional leanings, this is going to be the most bat shirt crazy stretch for the Court ever.

I'm not predicting it would happen. But if I was CJ Roberts, I would just resign after this term ends.

First, it would be the most legit and authentic act of non-partisanship at the Court in decades. Regardless of whether the speaker is Kennedy or Breyer or ACB, the empty bleating from the Justices about how non-political they are is just completely embarassing BS. Since none of them walk the walk in any meaningful way. If they were not partisan, then why do they go to such extreme lengths to make sure their successor will always always always be from their political party?

Second, CJR resigning now would strike a blow for the long-since overdue reforms at the Court. He's been on about 18 years -- exactly when SCOTUS term limits would kick in.

Third, I can't imagine he (as a normal person) really wants to keep working there. Given how effed up the Court is and how toxic and hyper-polarized the appointment/confirmation process is.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 98b480385c

Poor Senator Schumer sure stepped on his wanker with these poor choice of words. I'm wondering how long it will take the FLP jack wagons on this forum to decipher for us what the good senator was trying to say?? I already know the answer, Sen Schumer found himself caught up in the moment and started saying stuff he never thought would come back to bite him in the ass. To my knowledge, Sen Schumer has not made a public statement to explain his angry rhetoric. I do know there are more than enough FLP on this forum to explain it. I also know not a one of you chuckle heads will call him out and DEMAND he retract what he said. Your selective outrage always rolls down a one way FLP street...

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 98b480385c

Poor Senator Schumer sure stepped on his wanker with these poor choice of words. I'm wondering how long it will take the FLP jack wagons on this forum to decipher for us what the good senator was trying to say?? I already know the answer, Sen Schumer found himself caught up in the moment and started saying stuff he never thought would come back to bite him in the ass. To my knowledge, Sen Schumer has not made a public statement to explain his angry rhetoric. I do know there are more than enough FLP on this forum to explain it. I also know not a one of you chuckle heads will call him out and DEMAND he retract what he said. Your selective outrage always rolls down a one way FLP street...

Schumer's comments, in retrospect, were dumb, ill-advised, and beneath a Senator. But he made the comments two years ago. I'm not sure the nutcake was really animated by Chuck's comments. When the guy called the cops on himself, did he say, "I'm here due to Chuck Schumer's call to arms"? "I took Chuck's comments as 'who will rid me of this troublesome Justice"? etc. Ronna milks the incident, and I see that you love that from the "center" of your couch. But the blame game doesn't really hang together.

[jhu72]

The inhumanity of the new Court. We have touched on this previously.

[Peter Brown]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 98b480385c

Poor Senator Schumer sure stepped on his wanker with these poor choice of words. I'm wondering how long it will take the FLP jack wagons on this forum to decipher for us what the good senator was trying to say?? I already know the answer, Sen Schumer found himself caught up in the moment and started saying stuff he never thought would come back to bite him in the ass. To my knowledge, Sen Schumer has not made a public statement to explain his angry rhetoric. I do know there are more than enough FLP on this forum to explain it. I also know not a one of you chuckle heads will call him out and DEMAND he retract what he said. Your selective outrage always rolls down a one way FLP street...

He knew what he was doing. It wasn’t even poorly chosen words. He knew precisely what would happen. His only regret is it took so long for one of his demented followers to act upon it.

Mad Maxine Waters has said similar things. Most national Democrats encouraged lawless rioting during the summer of 2020, which directly led to January 6.

[a fan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 98b480385c

Poor Senator Schumer sure stepped on his wanker with these poor choice of words. I'm wondering how long it will take the FLP jack wagons on this forum to decipher for us what the good senator was trying to say?? I already know the answer, Sen Schumer found himself caught up in the moment and started saying stuff he never thought would come back to bite him in the ass. To my knowledge, Sen Schumer has not made a public statement to explain his angry rhetoric. I do know there are more than enough FLP on this forum to explain it. I also know not a one of you chuckle heads will call him out and DEMAND he retract what he said. Your selective outrage always rolls down a one way FLP street...

He knew what he was doing. It wasn’t even poorly chosen words. He knew precisely what would happen. His only regret is it took so long for one of his demented followers to act upon it.

Mad Maxine Waters has said similar things. Most national Democrats encouraged lawless rioting during the summer of 2020, which directly led to January 6.

I thought were were supposed to ignore what our leaders say or tweet? Focus on policy, and ignore the words that come out of their mouths?

Change of heart, Pete, now that we're not talking about Trump?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 98b480385c

Poor Senator Schumer sure stepped on his wanker with these poor choice of words. I'm wondering how long it will take the FLP jack wagons on this forum to decipher for us what the good senator was trying to say?? I already know the answer, Sen Schumer found himself caught up in the moment and started saying stuff he never thought would come back to bite him in the ass. To my knowledge, Sen Schumer has not made a public statement to explain his angry rhetoric. I do know there are more than enough FLP on this forum to explain it. I also know not a one of you chuckle heads will call him out and DEMAND he retract what he said. Your selective outrage always rolls down a one way FLP street...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/cesar-s ... itics.html

KEY POINTS

“MAGA Bomber” Cesar Sayoc was sentenced to 20 years in prison on Monday for sending 16 mail bombs to 13 people around the United States last year.

The targets included leading critics of President Donald Trump such as former President Barack Obama, ex-Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, actor Robert De Niro and financier George Soros.

Sayoc’s other targets included CNN, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former CIA Director John Brennan, Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Tom Steyer, a billionaire now running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[jhu72]

SCOTUS is asking for trouble. Not really surprising given their fascist bent. SCOTUS and the natural thug-ishness of boarder patrol officers is going to end up getting people killed. Just opening the way for more corruption at the boarder.

[Peter Brown]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 98b480385c

Poor Senator Schumer sure stepped on his wanker with these poor choice of words. I'm wondering how long it will take the FLP jack wagons on this forum to decipher for us what the good senator was trying to say?? I already know the answer, Sen Schumer found himself caught up in the moment and started saying stuff he never thought would come back to bite him in the ass. To my knowledge, Sen Schumer has not made a public statement to explain his angry rhetoric. I do know there are more than enough FLP on this forum to explain it. I also know not a one of you chuckle heads will call him out and DEMAND he retract what he said. Your selective outrage always rolls down a one way FLP street...

He knew what he was doing. It wasn’t even poorly chosen words. He knew precisely what would happen. His only regret is it took so long for one of his demented followers to act upon it.

Mad Maxine Waters has said similar things. Most national Democrats encouraged lawless rioting during the summer of 2020, which directly led to January 6.

I thought were were supposed to ignore what our leaders say or tweet? Focus on policy, and ignore the words that come out of their mouths?

Change of heart, Pete, now that we're not talking about Trump?

You constantly confuse me for someone else, and you constantly put words in other peoples mouths.

I’m not a Trump fan so far as you conceive of that. Did I vote for him over Biden? Sure. That choice looks more intelligent by the second in case you’re not studying the economy these days.

I wish Trump would have stayed off Twitter. His words had real impact on both gullible followers, as well as weaker members of society. It’s a shame because he had a very compelling track record.

So far as any politician or well known celebrity/media person, you need to calibrate your words. Words have impact. Democrats have a bizarre anger management issue; as a result, their leaders need to be careful, or should be. The problem here is many of their leaders don’t care what their followers do…take a look at the BLM violence in 2020. Almost no Democrat decried that.