SCOTUS

[a fan]

In what world does "outside sources" have thing one to do what's in the Constitution? There aren't footnotes or citations in the thing. There is the document

You cannot run away from the word "militia". It's in there on purpose. If they didn't care about them? They wouldn't have put that word in. So sorry, you can't look at anything by the words IN the Constitution to decide what that means.

I think your fellow Americans would disagree with how you're moving the statistics around to make it sound like gun violence isn't a thing in America.

Here we go again.

Historical documents ("outside sources") have nothing to do with 1) understanding how what is enshrined in the Constitution 2) how it was arrived at and 3) its intended meaning in the words of those where were there? I'm so confused.

Well it seems you understand my point just fine.

At no point does the Constitution instruct Americans to "check James Madison's notes to help you interpret these laws".

It's a CHOICE to look at these things as a Judge, Waffle.

Judges can do whatever they like.

Some look at precedent. Some don't. Some look at the Constitution text. Some don't. Some do as you are suggesting....ferret through obscure writings and letters from Madison or Jefferson, or whomever. You're not 'wrong' for wanting to do that, obviously....because there is no "wrong" way to interpret the Constitution (well, within reason, obviously). It's all opinion.

The point I was trying to make is "Why, if 99.99% of Americans who own guns are peaceful and law abiding, are so many of the existing and proposed gun laws and policies pointed directly at them? Shouldn't we instead point solutions directly at those perpetrating criminal violence (with any tool, and including guns), and the underlying causes which are at the foundation for the behavior? That was my inference and intent, hopefully more clearly explained?

Yes. But IMHO, the mistake you're making is: the pro-gun advocates don't do that, either. They do NOTHING, which in my view, is the entire problem.

The reason the gun grabbers are sick of the NRA et al...... is that this pro-gun crowd kills ANYTHING that might help. In other words, they DON'T go after the criminals with zeal.

We're very much on the same page, imho....it's hard to have conversations online without misunderstandings.

Enjoy your gardening!

[ggait]

Aileen Cannon gunning to be nominated to take Clarence Thomas’ place.

Holy molie!

Ken Starr— illegal. David Weiss — illegal. Bob Mueller — illegal. Jack Smith — illegal.

All special counsels illegal.

And Trump walks. Since he’ll be re elected long before any appeals can be heard.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Aileen Cannon gunning to be nominated to take Clarence Thomas’ place.

Holy molie!

Ken Starr— illegal. David Weiss — illegal. Bob Mueller — illegal. Jack Smith — illegal.

All special counsels illegal.

And Trump walks. Since he’ll be re elected long before any appeals can be heard.

Yeah, she gets a Federal Circuit Court job out of this, minimum.

[ggait]

And of course she’s channeling Thomas’ gratuitous rando wink wink footnote in the immunity case. Where the issue of the sc appointment was not even raised.

Thomas making sure he gets to resign soon so he can accept unlimited gratuities and hospitality in his sunset years.

Ridiculous.

[njbill]

You mean Clarence’s advisory opinion memo to Judge Cannon?

I actually didn’t think she would go for this one because it is so obviously wrong. Increases the chances that the 11th Circuit will remove her.

[RedFromMI]

You mean Clarence’s advisory opinion memo to Judge Cannon?

I actually didn’t think she would go for this one because it is so obviously wrong. Increases the chances that the 11th Circuit will remove her.

She is taking Clarence's footnote as an invitation for this dismissal to be affirmed by the SC. Should not happen, but with this summer's rulings, it very well could...

[ggait]

Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

[MDlaxfan76]

Anyone from the 'right' want to offer a counterargument, coherently and cogently please?

I can't think of such to offer up...

[ggait]

Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

[youthathletics]

For reference:




https://x.com/amrenewctr/status/1738208171028557904

[Essexfenwick]

Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

[PizzaSnake]

The real question, which no one wants to address, is at what point is someone, somewhere, going to look at these recent SC decisions and decide to take matters into their own hands? Or have they attempted, and, beyond the gentlemen discovered last year in the judge's neighborhood, and no mention was made in an move to reduce the rising tensions?

And before YA and Waffle and that chorus get started, I DO NOT condone or encourage violence. I have, in the past, engaged in some intemperate speech for which I take ownership.

But, to not consider the very real possibility that what occurred in Butler, PA this last weekend is not, and will not be, a random and isolated incident is to "whistle past the graveyard."

Moving beyond any talk of culpability, shared or exclusive, to explore what are likely to be triggers of future acts is what is relevant. How much revision of the established order (stare decisis) and recent legal precedent will be tolerated by the population is the real question? And if traditional mechanisms of recourse like elections become ineffective due to gerrymandering and vote suppression, what then? Will people stifle their increasing discontent? Or will that discontent manifest in other fashions?

Should we view the entirety of the Maga movement as a response to what that group views as a similar provocation? I can't believe that their isn't some logic in their behavior even though I do not share their perspective. Believing they feel justified is NOT the same as agreeing with that logic, incidentally. Some readers here seem very challenged in understanding what is actually being said, so I will try and be as clear as possible, although I suspect bad intent rather than incomprehension.

To summarize, then: the country is facing a crisis of civil discord. Passions, fuelled by grievances, perceived and actual, are running high. Does there exist a shared interest and will among enough of the polity to move beyond the breast-for-tat escalation that can only result in more and increased acts of violence? Will that shared interest and will, exercised via the vote, be enough to bring the nation back from the edge? Who, if anyone, would see an advantage in increased discord and be actively engaged in amplifying it, believing themselves immune from the resultant violence?

[MDlaxfan76]

For reference:




https://x.com/amrenewctr/status/1738208171028557904

Not exactly compelling logic.

Particularly as so many other courts have rejected that argument.
Gotta think this is overturned and perhaps Cannon dismissed from case.

But that'll be appealed to SCOTUS and they'll delay.

[youthathletics]

For reference:




https://x.com/amrenewctr/status/1738208171028557904

Not exactly compelling logic.

Particularly as so many other courts have rejected that argument.
Gotta think this is overturned and perhaps Cannon dismissed from case.

But that'll be appealed to SCOTUS and they'll delay.

May be. For what its worth.....reading between the lines, this was borderline 4th branch gambit type stuff, which will always lose.

[cradleandshoot]

For reference:




https://x.com/amrenewctr/status/1738208171028557904

Not exactly compelling logic.

Particularly as so many other courts have rejected that argument.
Gotta think this is overturned and perhaps Cannon dismissed from case.

But that'll be appealed to SCOTUS and they'll delay.

That's the legal world for you. I know that there are legal eagles that have been arguing that Jack Smiths appointment was a violation of the appointments clause. The next step is to appeal Judge Cannons decision and let the legal cards fall where they may. The instant I read her decision this morning I knew the boo birds would be out in full force. Patience is the order of the day. The relevant question to be determined is pretty straightforward did Jack Smiths appointment violate the constitution?

[MDlaxfan76]

Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

[Essexfenwick]

Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

[Essexfenwick]

The 11th circuit ..Clarence Thomas is circuit justice

The Marxists attacked him for a pubic hair on a coke.


Damn.

[MDlaxfan76]

Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Typical "Petey" behavior.

[Essexfenwick]

Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Typical "Petey" behavior.

He would have to prove his “care” in multiple murder trials. Over 1000 innocents murdered in multiple events is far more serious than the Trump lawfare cases.

Then the civil trials to compensate the families of the murdered innocents including American citizens

Obama drone murdered more innocents than all the mass shootings of the last 20 years.