Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    When he wanted to he could pull a new right out of his as-s same as any liberal.
    I like to call that "a Don Adam call." (Control your audio from 14-17 seconds marks ... NSFW.)
    The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

    North Dakota Hockey:

    Comment


    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

      Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
      I like to call that "a Don Adam call." (Control your audio from 14-17 seconds marks ... NSFW.)
      Very nice.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
        This was kind of a big case denied cert.

        http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...626-story.html
        Difficult to see how even a strict constructionist could argue that 2A has anything to say about carrying concealed. You have the right to carry, but 10A says that a state has the right to pass a reasonable restriction on how you can carry within its borders. That should also naturally extend to what and where you can carry, provided it's not an unreasonable, all-encompassing ban.

        Comment


        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

          Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
          That should also naturally extend to what and where you can carry, provided it's not an unreasonable, all-encompassing ban.
          Maybe that's how you eventually bring in some sanity. You can't carry near where kids are. Well, kids are in most public places, so effectively you can only carry on kid-free private property.

          Nibble away like no smoking laws.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
            Maybe that's how you eventually bring in some sanity. You can't carry near where kids are. Well, kids are in most public places, so effectively you can only carry on kid-free private property.
            I'm thinking of this like a contract, and that would definitely be "unreasonable with respect to scope and geography".

            Comment


            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
              I'm thinking of this like a contract, and that would definitely be "unreasonable with respect to scope and geography".
              A place to start, though, in thinking about it. The state has a compelling interest in not having its citizens, ya know, get killed.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                BTW, during SCOTUSBlog's live commentary this morning, there was a comment made by a viewer that epitomizes the problems with the current right.

                In a prisoner's rights case, the court split 5-4 on ideological lines, with Kennedy joining the conservatives. Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog noted that was not a good signal for the prisoners, which was a good guess based on past history and one proven to be correct once you read the full order.

                The viewer then commented that such a statement was "the kind of not legitimate reporting that has become all too common and to keep her biased opinion to herself" because why would an opinion by the 5 conservatives automatically be bad for the prisoners.

                Never mind that all of the justices, except for Gorsuch, have a proven track record and past practice is indicative of future performance.

                How do you respond to someone with that warped of a viewpoint.
                Last edited by unofan; 06-26-2017, 04:41 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                  The state has a compelling interest in not having its citizens, ya know, get killed.
                  Don't bring Roe v. Wade into this ... < you'll just have to imagine my simpering smirk here >
                  The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                  North Dakota Hockey:

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                    Don't bring Roe v. Wade into this ... < you'll just have to imagine my simpering smirk here >
                    Since citizenship is granted at birth, you're not a citizen until then. (Boom, lawyered).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      Originally posted by unofan View Post
                      Since citizenship is granted at birth, you're not a citizen until then. (Boom, lawyered).
                      Does that include ... partial birth ...
                      The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                      North Dakota Hockey:

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                        Does that include ... partial birth ...
                        Birthing, like pregnancy, is a yes or no proposition. Either you're born, or not. There's no partial pregnancy and there's no partial birth.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                          Don't bring Roe v. Wade into this ... < you'll just have to imagine my simpering smirk here >
                          < And my eye rolling. >
                          Last edited by Kepler; 06-26-2017, 04:53 PM.
                          Cornell University
                          National Champion 1967, 1970
                          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                          Comment


                          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                            Um, ... OK. But ...

                            Where does the term "partial-birth" abortion come from?

                            The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.
                            http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/516816...fact-from-spin

                            Intact, through the birth canal.
                            Um ... if it has a pulse, isn't it a citizen at that point, by your lawyering?
                            The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                            North Dakota Hockey:

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                              Um, ... OK. But ...



                              http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/516816...fact-from-spin

                              Intact, through the birth canal.
                              Um ... if it has a pulse, isn't it a citizen at that point, by your lawyering?
                              They aren't issued a birth certificate, so no, they're not.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                                Um, ... OK. But ...



                                http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/516816...fact-from-spin

                                Intact, through the birth canal.
                                Um ... if it has a pulse, isn't it a citizen at that point, by your lawyering?
                                No because it has had his/her spinal cord snipped then the corpse is dragged out of the mother. If the doc did the snipping after the baby had been completely ejected from the mother, it would be murder. But because part of the baby remains inside the mother, there is a gray area in the law that permits this abomination.
                                CCT '77 & '78
                                4 kids
                                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                                - Benjamin Franklin

                                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X