Boyer' open letter to Kaepernick

[Joe Fan]

You're probably right. I don't remember her being like this until about 5 years ago. However, whatever it is, I'm a fan. She's liberal as hell and almost always votes the wrong way but at least dishes out some humor and entertainment. I'll take that over some sanctimonious hack who takes herself seriously like Sotomayor.

It's a good point but isnt this why we (usually, not always) like it when old folk finally let it go and start telling the truth, as they see it, on everything? As libertarians/conservatives, we always want the unvarnished truth, even when it stings, right?

With Ruth, however, there is not doubt her commentary violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (“a judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.”). Yes, Scalia and Alito both walked up to that line but I would argue they did not cross it. They knew how far they could go and still stay in bounds. Ruth danced over it in a pink tutu.

And so here is an example of the problem with what Ruth said. By dancing over the line, she threw impartiality out the window and, accordingly, federal statute says she should now recuse herself from further cases that directly involve Trump --

28 USC §455 -- "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

​

 

[bystander]

This may not be on point but talking about Sotomayor and Ruth made me think about the nomination process and what it is we're really trying to accomplish in our country.

In my view a position on the court is not intended to take care of specific demographics. It is my opinion that the best way to take care of your race, gender, sexual orientation etc. is to demonstrate absolute, intelligent and competent adherence to the United States Constitution. That would prove that all demographics are Americans first and understand that our country has a well defined, preserved and amazing legal process. And in doing so you can effectively destroy the racists/bigots who believe only a white male is intelligent enough to serve.

A judge is not supposed to be a "seat at the table" if that seat only means grabbing food for certain people. That is pure politics and in my opinion it would be a disaster for our country. Congress is supposed to be your seat at the table.

It seems to me (the layman's layman) that the fight from the Left during a SCOTUS nomination is indicative of the plan to circumvent the Constitution by the court because amendments are too difficult. But I don't understand why a demographic apart from a white male should interpret the Constitution differently other than for power acquisition/retention which is not the point of the court. In this regard, I've been thinking about equality and what that really means. To me, after 231 years the US Constitution shouldn't be that hard to interpret. I understand that there is some ambiguous language but in general you'd think we can figure the thing out. So to me, equality would mean that a man or a woman, a white or a black, a heterosexual or a member of the LGBT could competently arrive at the same answer with the proper level of legal training; i.e. not indoctrination. In other words, we should be able to trust any demographic, trained in the law, to rule in the proper legal manner under our laws. But in their view, putting the "opposite" of the stipulated enemy (white, heterosexual, male) will mean a different outcome altogether. And that is the real argument. Not that they are incompetent or bad jurists because of their demographic; but instead because they arrive at a politically charged opinion that takes care of their defined constituency; i.e. the victims.

 

[Joe Fan]

...It seems to me (the layman's layman) that the fight from the Left during a SCOTUS nomination is indicative of the plan to circumvent the Constitution by the court because amendments are too difficult. But I don't understand why a demographic apart from a white male should interpret the Constitution differently other than for power acquisition/retention which is not the point of the court. In this regard, I've been thinking about equality and what that really means. To me, after 231 years the US Constitution shouldn't be that hard to interpret. I understand that there is some ambiguous language but in general you'd think we can figure the thing out. So to me, equality would mean that a man or a woman, a white or a black, a heterosexual or a member of the LGBT could competently arrive at the same answer with the proper level of legal training; i.e. not indoctrination. In other words, we should be able to trust any demographic, trained in the law, to rule in the proper legal manner under our laws. But in their view, putting the "opposite" of the stipulated enemy (white, heterosexual, male) will mean a different outcome altogether. And that is the real argument. Not that they are incompetent or bad jurists because of their demographic; but instead because they arrive at a politically charged opinion that takes care of their defined constituency; i.e. the victims.

I have been struggling with a way to properly articulate my issue on this part. It has to do with their oath of office --

“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
28 USCode §453 - Oaths of justices and judges
​

I take the position that if you go into this role with the idea that you are going to re-write the Constitution, treat is as merely "advisory," or simply ignore the parts that you disagree with, then your oath is invalid on its face which immediately disqualifies you from the office. I havent yet figured out the best way to make this argument, but I am working on it.

 

[Monahorns]

Bystander, what you don't understand is a something called "polylogism". It is an idea that Obama hinted at when he described Sotomayor. Progressives by and large believe in polylogism and therefore they have a completely different understanding of the world than you do, much less the Constitution and law. Progressives also are mostly post-modern which teaches that the intended meaning of a writing let alone the words used have any basis for how to interpret a document. The interpreter is in complete control of the interpretation. RBG, Sotomayor, the DNC, etc believe this and it is why there is such a huge partisan divide today in US politics. The two sides aren't even reading from the same playbook.

 

[Joe Fan]

Bystander, what you don't understand is a something called "polylogism". It is an idea that Obama hinted at when he described Sotomayor. Progressives by and large believe in polylogism and therefore they have a completely different understanding of the world than you do, much less the Constitution and law. Progressives also are mostly post-modern which teaches that the intended meaning of a writing let alone the words used have any basis for how to interpret a document. The interpreter is in complete control of the interpretation. RBG, Sotomayor, the DNC, etc believe this and it is why there is such a huge partisan divide today in US politics. The two sides aren't even reading from the same playbook.

Again, how can you swear an oath to discharge the duties placed upon you by the Constitution and other federal laws if you do not believe in them in the first place?

 

[Monahorns]

Because you are a Communist mole?

 

[Horns11]

Again, how can you swear an oath to discharge the duties placed upon you by the Constitution and other federal laws if you do not believe in them in the first place?

It's strange to state that people don't "believe" in the Constitution or laws. I mean, was the Warren court wrong with a lot of its decisions? Or John Marshall?

If Earl Warren thought that a right to privacy sort of exists, and 6 other justices agreed with him, then how is that unconstitutional or against the "rule of law?" Doesn't that prove that it's implied? Or that the law itself was flawed? Or some combination thereof?

If the Dem minority on the court loses every major case for the next umpteen years, it puts them in the same legal standing as the guys who dissented in Griswold (Black and Stewart). They're on the wrong side of history but not the wrong side of law. I don't hold it against them... it's how our judicial branch is supposed to work. You seem to think that one side has a monopoly on inerrancy. If so, then I guess this court will have a chance to prove it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You didn't direct this at me, but I'm going to answer anyway, because with all due respect (and I mean that), there's a lot wrong with it.

If Earl Warren thought that a right to privacy sort of exists, and 6 other justices agreed with him, then how is that unconstitutional or against the "rule of law?" Doesn't that prove that it's implied? Or that the law itself was flawed? Or some combination thereof?

No. First, the number of justices who agree with something doesn't make it right or even more right. In fact, it's not even relevant. You can have a unanimously wrong decision. Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld racial segregation) was a 7-1 decision. Was it only slightly less right than Brown v. Board of Education, which overruled it unanimously? Of course not. In fact, that's not even possible.

Second, really think about your logic. You're suggesting that the agreement of 7 justices in Griswold proves that the right to privacy is implied and question why someone would think this violates the rule of law.

Slow down for a moment. What's really driving your analysis? It's not the written law (meaning what the Constitution actually says). You don't even discuss that. It is the numbers of justices who agree with the ruling. It is the men on the Court who are providing the strength to the argument. That is exact opposite of the rule of law. The whole point of the rule of law and the whole point of writing down laws at all is that what is written down is supposed to control, not the men in charge. You are completely turning that on its head. I don't think that's what you're intending to do, but it is exactly what you're doing.

Third, Earl Warren didn't say the right of privacy "sort of existed." Justice Douglas said that it definitely does exist. There is no "sort of" in this. It either exists, or it doesn't, because a judgment has to be rendered. You can't half-*** this. Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose.

Finally, the problem with "finding" rights in the Constitution (in addition to the obvious pissing away of the rule of law) is that you run up against rights that clearly are in the Constitution. If you "find" a right to privacy in the "penumbras" and "emanations," you necessarily limit and restrict the general jurisdiction and rights of the state governments (and therefore the citizens of those states), which are both implied (through the federal structure) and express in the Tenth Amendment. So you're elevating something that's not written over something that is. Again, that is men ruling based on subjective opinions and policy preferences, not law.

If the Dem minority on the court loses every major case for the next umpteen years, it puts them in the same legal standing as the guys who dissented in Griswold (Black and Stewart).

First, the Democratic minority will crap in its pants and whine at how "illegitimate" the Court is just like the Right has when the Court has pissed in its face, but it won't necessarily put them in the same standing as the guys who dissented in Griswold. We'll have to read the specifics of each case.

They're on the wrong side of history but not the wrong side of law.

The "sides of history" isn't a real thing. It's a superficial talking point that politicians bandy around. Intelligent and informed adults like you shouldn't throw it around as if it's a serious issue. However, there is a right and wrong side of the law. The founding fathers wrote this stuff down for a reason, and lawmakers still write things down for a reason. If the Republican majority actually follows the written law in an opinion and the Democratic minority craps its pants about it, then yes, the Democratic minority will be on the wrong side of the law - not because they lost but because they'll be fighting the written law and therefore the rule of law.

Will I judge them on it right now? No, because I judge every case on its own merit. There will be times when the Democratic minority wants to follow the written law and the Republican majority doesn't. I think that'll happen far less, but it will happen. Both sides pull stuff out of their *** when it's convenient, but one side does do it much more and on more high-profile, hot-button cases. It shouldn't happen at all, but the less it happens, the better.

 

[bystander]

Bystander, what you don't understand is a something called "polylogism". It is an idea that Obama hinted at when he described Sotomayor. Progressives by and large believe in polylogism and therefore they have a completely different understanding of the world than you do, much less the Constitution and law. Progressives also are mostly post-modern which teaches that the intended meaning of a writing let alone the words used have any basis for how to interpret a document. The interpreter is in complete control of the interpretation. RBG, Sotomayor, the DNC, etc believe this and it is why there is such a huge partisan divide today in US politics. The two sides aren't even reading from the same playbook.

I've not heard that term but I am aware of the Strict Constructionist versus Penumbra arguments. Same thing I suppose. My point was that the document is nowhere near as ambiguous as the Left tries to make it out to be and given their tactics I believe they are politicizing the Constitution far too often. At least the Republicans stick to a conservative view (as written?) so they err towards keeping the central government in check and not subject us to human ambition (buying votes). HOWEVER, I am not so naive to think the Republicans don't err towards representing corporate America and I value the green and labor movements TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.

 

[Monahorns]

bystander, I agree with your understanding of the issue. I was trying to explain why the Leftist justices do what they do. It is based on a very real philosophy about epistemology. They are consistent with their own beliefs, but the beliefs are rotten.

 

[Horns11]

No. First, the number of justices who agree with something doesn't make it right or even more right. In fact, it's not even relevant. You can have a unanimously wrong decision. Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld racial segregation) was a 7-1 decision. Was it only slightly less right than Brown v. Board of Education, which overruled it unanimously? Of course not. In fact, that's not even possible.

No one in his/her right mind believes that Plessy is a great thing because of the number of justices who agreed. But "separate and equal" was definitely law from the 1800s until the 1950s. And you can find hundreds of state laws that agreed with it. Rule of law, right?

Second, really think about your logic. You're suggesting that the agreement of 7 justices in Griswold proves that the right to privacy is implied and question why someone would think this violates the rule of law.

I don't think that people shouldn't question it. I think that people should see why it's an open-ended problem.

Slow down for a moment. What's really driving your analysis? It's not the written law (meaning what the Constitution actually says). You don't even discuss that. It is the numbers of justices who agree with the ruling. It is the men on the Court who are providing the strength to the argument. That is exact opposite of the rule of law. The whole point of the rule of law and the whole point of writing down laws at all is that what is written down is supposed to control, not the men in charge. You are completely turning that on its head. I don't think that's what you're intending to do, but it is exactly what you're doing.

It's definitely written law: the contraceptives law from CT. And going back to John Marshall, I think it's safe to say that men on the court (and women going back to the 80s) felt it was part of the job to interpret whether or not you can derive certain rights/privileges from those laws. Or deny certain rights/privileges, in the case of Lochner or whatever else denied people what they thought was something pretty basic. I think if you're going to use separation of powers in order to determine what the final say on "law" is, then the legislative branch will always win. I'm not ultra-liberal and I agreed with cases like Lopez where the court determined that there was overreach from that branch. I think it's important that the individuals on the court have that kind of say.

Third, Earl Warren didn't say the right of privacy "sort of existed." Justice Douglas said that it definitely does exist. There is no "sort of" in this. It either exists, or it doesn't, because a judgment has to be rendered. You can't half-*** this. Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose.

Semantics. I think it's safe to say that Griswold didn't determine you have an absolute right to privacy in all circumstances. Hence, why I said "sort of." Sorry about the confusion.

Finally, the problem with "finding" rights in the Constitution (in addition to the obvious pissing away of the rule of law) is that you run up against rights that clearly are in the Constitution. If you "find" a right to privacy in the "penumbras" and "emanations," you necessarily limit and restrict the general jurisdiction and rights of the state governments (and therefore the citizens of those states), which are both implied (through the federal structure) and express in the Tenth Amendment. So you're elevating something that's not written over something that is. Again, that is men ruling based on subjective opinions and policy preferences, not law.

Then it's back to what I said about separation of powers. State governments can be liberal too, even though that's not the trend we've seen over the past 24 years or so. Their laws will eventually come into conflict with other laws as well.

The "sides of history" isn't a real thing. It's a superficial talking point that politicians bandy around. Intelligent and informed adults like you shouldn't throw it around as if it's a serious issue. However, there is a right and wrong side of the law. The founding fathers wrote this stuff down for a reason, and lawmakers still write things down for a reason. If the Republican majority actually follows the written law in an opinion and the Democratic minority craps its pants about it, then yes, the Democratic minority will be on the wrong side of the law - not because they lost but because they'll be fighting the written law and therefore the rule of law.

Marshall happened to be one of those guys who wrote down what he thought about the Constitution when it was written. I have no problem saying that Dems will lose on issues like labor law and speech=money laws and voter registration laws and whatever else they're about to lose for a while. It doesn't mean I agree with the majority, but it's still law. If you think that "activist" decisions like Roe aren't law because they didn't use someone else's words to determine their course of action, then I guess we just disagree about some fundamental functions of the court. There would be a metric ton of justices who would never have been confirmed because conservatives and the inerrancy of words would prevail forever and always.

 

[bystander]

Right to privacy shouldn't be the driving factor; it's what you're actually doing in the privacy of your home or marriage that should count. Is a baby in the womb a human being or not?

 

[Horns11]

I was just giving an example of an activist decision.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No one in his/her right mind believes that Plessy is a great thing because of the number of justices who agreed.

But you followed that logic in support of Griswold. If it doesn't fly with one, it doesn't fly with both.

But "separate and equal" was definitely law from the 1800s until the 1950s. And you can find hundreds of state laws that agreed with it. Rule of law, right?

The "law" was and is the 14th Amendment. Plessy was the Court's interpretation of that law. Their interpretation was wrong.

I don't think that people shouldn't question it. I think that people should see why it's an open-ended problem.

It shouldn't be an open-ended problem. We should read the 14th Amendment and apply it as it's written.

It's definitely written law: the contraceptives law from CT.

You're missing my point about following the written law. Griswold didn't apply the contraceptives law. It applied the 14th Amendment. The failure to apply it as written is what's wrong with Griswold (and Roe).

And going back to John Marshall, I think it's safe to say that men on the court (and women going back to the 80s) felt it was part of the job to interpret whether or not you can derive certain rights/privileges from those laws. Or deny certain rights/privileges,

Yes, this is true, but they're supposed to actually follow what those laws say. When we're talking about decisions like Griswold, Roe, Lochner, or Dred Scott (which rely all rely on the same doctrine), we miles away from what the written law actually says. We're pulling it out of our asses.

I think if you're going to use separation of powers in order to determine what the final say on "law" is, then the legislative branch will always win.

I never mentioned the separation of powers or who gets to be the ultimate authority on deciding what the law says. This isn't a Marbury v. Madison problem. It is a "judges wanting to be gods" problem.

Then it's back to what I said about separation of powers. State governments can be liberal too, even though that's not the trend we've seen over the past 24 years or so. Their laws will eventually come into conflict with other laws as well.

It doesn't matter if the states want to be too liberal. Unless they're breaching express limitations on their power, they have that right. The Court should follow the written law, which would clearly allow Texas to ban abortion and California to ban handguns.

If you think that "activist" decisions like Roe aren't law because they didn't use someone else's words to determine their course of action, then I guess we just disagree about some fundamental functions of the court.

Maybe we do disagree. I believe in the rule of law. That means that when lawmakers enact a constitution, it gets applied and enforced as it's written. When they enact statutes, they get applied and enforced as written to the extent that they don't violate a higher authority such as a constitution. They didn't do in Roe, so they were wrong.

There would be a metric ton of justices who would never have been confirmed because conservatives and the inerrancy of words would prevail forever and always.

Inerrant or not, the words are supposed to be the supreme law of the land. They are what the lawmakers enacted. Judges are supposed to follow that. If they aren't, they are abusing their power.

 

[Horns11]

I never mentioned the separation of powers or who gets to be the ultimate authority on deciding what the law says. This isn't a Marbury v. Madison problem. It is a "judges wanting to be gods" problem.

As opposed to legislators wanting to be gods? I guess this is my part of the impasse. When all of those men wrote laws back in the day to allow the majority to say that poll taxes were fine and literacy tests were fine because they were applying their interpretation of the Constitution, they were following the "law." I don't see how this is preferred.

It doesn't matter if the states want to be too liberal. Unless they're breaching express limitations on their power, they have that right. The Court should follow the written law, which would clearly allow Texas to ban abortion and California to ban handguns.

I'm glad you brought up a version of "conservatives striking down a liberal law" instead of mine. You seem to hinge on liberals losing their **** if a conservative court follows rule of law. If the opposite occurs, and CA is allowed to ban handguns because we get a decision different from Heller or McDonald, then wouldn't it just become the vice versa situation? 2nd Amendment rights infringement, etc.? Rule of law (Constitution, not state law)?

Maybe we do disagree. I believe in the rule of law. That means that when lawmakers enact a constitution, it gets applied and enforced as it's written. When they enact statutes, they get applied and enforced as written to the extent that they don't violate a higher authority such as a constitution. They didn't do in Roe, so they were wrong.

Yeah I just don't think the framers had zero foresight. Things would change as time went on and the "words" of the Constitution, as fitting as they were for the 1780s, wouldn't necessarily apply in all circumstances. And I don't think Jefferson was talking about the amendment process when he (or some other mythological founding father) said that it would be like a man wearing the same coat he wore as a boy. And when either side (Dem or Republican) tries to seize advantage of state/local law because it's what "fits" in the Constitution at the time they wrote the law, it's still the law. And that's why I think we need a court that can actually use things like intent and other's opinions about it instead of inerrancy.

 

[bystander]

As opposed to legislators wanting to be gods?

I think that's the point of the court. They knew the legislators would want to play God for their constituents. By it's very nature, Congress is extremely narrow and biased in favor of whom they represent. Someone has to take the political stakes out of the sanctimony and unemotionally reign in the extremism.

To put a representative of the extremists (or a representative of a narrowly defined group; i.e. Sotomayor) then you have put "God" on the court.

 

[Mr. Deez]

As opposed to legislators wanting to be gods?

No, as opposed to the written law being supreme.

When all of those men wrote laws back in the day to allow the majority to say that poll taxes were fine and literacy tests were fine because they were applying their interpretation of the Constitution, they were following the "law." I don't see how this is preferred.

This is a results-oriented rationale. Poll taxes and literacy tests were fine, because the law permitted them. The law now says they aren't fine. The written law was changed. That's how it's supposed to work.

I'm glad you brought up a version of "conservatives striking down a liberal law" instead of mine.

I actually mentioned both scenarios. It's doesn't matter.

You seem to hinge on liberals losing their **** if a conservative court follows rule of law.

That's because they're the ones losing their **** right now. We haven't seen that to a significant degree since the New Deal, because they've largely gotten their way in the Supreme Court. That makes it noteworthy.

If the opposite occurs, and CA is allowed to ban handguns because we get a decision different from Heller or McDonald, then wouldn't it just become the vice versa situation? 2nd Amendment rights infringement, etc.? Rule of law (Constitution, not state law)?

No, it wouldn't be a Second Amendment infringement, because the Second Amendment is a limit on federal power and should not apply to the State of California. Heller (which applied to a federal city) was correct. McDonald (which applied to states) was an abuse of power and should be overturned. It won't be, but it should be.

Yeah I just don't think the framers had zero foresight.

They had tremendous foresight. That's why they made an amendment process.

Things would change as time went on and the "words" of the Constitution, as fitting as they were for the 1780s, wouldn't necessarily apply in all circumstances. And I don't think Jefferson was talking about the amendment process when he (or some other mythological founding father) said that it would be like a man wearing the same coat he wore as a boy.

You correctly cite to Jefferson, but he's talking about laws and institutions changing gradually (not suddenly by the stroke of a judge's signature on a court order) with the times. In fact, he believed in the idea that basically no law or constitution should last more than a generation. He's not talking about legal verbiage meaning something different tomorrow than it does today. That really wasn't a thing in Jefferson's day. The whole point of having written laws adopted by legislatures (constitutions, statutes, etc.) was to guide and restrict the discretion of judges who otherwise had common law authority to do justice as they saw fit. That doesn't happen if the judges can just make up definitions as they go along. Furthermore, we'd basically nullify the amendment process. There'd be no point. Just find a judge who will say x means y instead of x - much easier than changing the Constitution.

It's also worth noting that Jefferson didn't even believe in judicial review. He described it as "despotic." I'm not saying he's necessarily correct, but the point is that he was distrustful of broad exercises of judicial power over the democratic institutions, which suggests that it's doubtful that he meant what you think he meant with his coat analogy.

And that's why I think we need a court that can actually use things like intent and other's opinions about it instead of inerrancy.

The court is supposed to use the intent of the legislature that enacted the statute or constitution being applied, and that intent is ascertained first and foremost from the words used. Can they use other materials such as legislative history? Yes, but those materials are supposed to provide guidance about what the legislature meant when they used the words that are written.

 

[bystander]

No, it wouldn't be a Second Amendment infringement, because the Second Amendment is a limit on federal power and should not apply to the State of California.

Maybe I need to read your entire exchange with Horns11 but this reads to me that California could in fact ban guns but the federal government cannot. Is that what you mean?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Maybe I need to read your entire exchange with Horns11 but this reads to me that California could in fact ban guns but the federal government cannot. Is that what you mean?

It seems to say that, and I would like it if it did work that way, but then how come when we pass a law saying you gotta present ID to vote in Texas, it's the feds that tell us no you can't do that?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Maybe I need to read your entire exchange with Horns11 but this reads to me that California could in fact ban guns but the federal government cannot. Is that what you mean?

Yes, that is what I mean. Just to be clear, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me and has reached the opposite conclusion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This is one guy reading the law and applying it.

 

[bystander]

Yes, that is what I mean. Just to be clear, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me and has reached the opposite conclusion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This is one guy reading the law and applying it.

Wouldn't that mean a state could outlaw abortion then?

 

[Mr. Deez]

It seems to say that, and I would like it if it did work that way, but then how come when we pass a law saying you gotta present ID to vote in Texas, it's the feds that tell us no you can't do that?

The voter ID laws typically get struck down under the Voting Rights Act, not the Constitution. It's a different dynamic. (I think it's BS, but it's a different issue.)

 

[Mr. Deez]

Wouldn't that mean a state could outlaw abortion then?

They should be able to, but obviously, they can't under Roe v. Wade.

 

[bystander]

They should be able to, but obviously, they can't under Roe v. Wade.

Maybe I'm not following you; if you said that the the 2nd Amendment was in fact a limit on Federal power is not Roe V Wade the same thing? Or is it worded differently (well obviously it is but I mean does it say the states cannot outlaw it)?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Maybe I'm not following you; if you said that the the 2nd Amendment was in fact a limit on Federal power is not Roe V Wade the same thing?

They aren't the same. The 2nd Amendment is a limit on federal power. Roe (invalidating abortion bans) and McDonald (invalidating state gun laws) rely on the 14th Amendment, which limits state power. Specifically, they rely on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which the judicial tyrants say grants certain "fundamental rights" (which are defined completely subjectively), one of which is a general "privacy" right (Roe). Another is the right to bear arms (McDonald). Of course, the Left loves the privacy right in Roe but deplores the right to bear arms in McDonald. Most of the Right feels the opposite. I deplore both.

 

[ShAArk92]

wow this thread chased a rabbit or two

 

[mchammer]

wow this thread chased a rabbit or two

Lawyers

 

[Mr. Deez]

I didn't start the rabbit chase this time. Lol.

 

[Horns11]

Sorry

I appreciate the time you put into it. Like I said, I think it's fine to have disagreements about these sort of things and that it's good to get a sense of why people feel the way they do. When Joe said that basically anyone who thinks that the Constitution is "advisory" or that they are literally changing parts of it, my sense is that for the past 200+ years, the law has quite literally swooped back and forth with the times. Right or wrong, I still think it represents the "law" at the time, whether that time is liberal or conservative. Or the court being liberal/conservative.

I find things like Korematsu, Dred Scott, etc. to be abhorrent stains on our legal system, and the fact that they're no longer law today makes me happy. But it doesn't change that they were law "back then." I guess if I had to put it into words, I'd say that anyone who passes Joe's litmus test for being a federal judge yet agrees with those decisions should have been disqualified.

I think it's interesting that you're willing to stand up for states' rights when that right to legislate leans heavily left. Seems to spit right in the face of what Joe was talking about in terms of rule of law. We didn't even get into Article VI or anything like that. And how the amendment process wasn't built for a bipartisan nation. Another thread maybe!

 

[Mr. Deez]

I appreciate the time you put into it. Like I said, I think it's fine to have disagreements about these sort of things and that it's good to get a sense of why people feel the way they do.

I agree, and I do respect you much like I respect Seattle Husker. I think you're probably somewhat to his right, but I think you both have good intentions and are patriotic people who want what's good for the country.

I know you're at somewhat of an agree to disagree point here, but let me throw in some comments on two statements you made. You don't have to answer them if you don't want to, but just kick them around. And besides, this stuff is right up my alley, so it's hard for me to shut up. lol

I find things like Korematsu, Dred Scott, etc. to be abhorrent stains on our legal system, and the fact that they're no longer law today makes me happy.

I don't like either one, but I don't see those cases the same way. I think Korematsu was far more defensible than Dred Scott for two reasons. First, there was a major war going on and the internment of Japanese was a true security measure. It wasn't just to screw with Japanese people. Second, it's politically incorrect to point this out, but there is no equal protection clause for the federal government. Constitutionally, they can discriminate on the basis of race. Doesn't make it right, but they can do it. (The Supreme Court has "inferred" an equal protection requirement, but they pulled it out of their *** and hadn't done so at the time of Korematsu.)

Dred Scott was a true abuse of judicial power. The Court butchered a clearly constitutional federal law by twisting the due process clause and did it solely to drive its own policy agenda of protecting slavery.

I think it's interesting that you're willing to stand up for states' rights when that right to legislate leans heavily left. Seems to spit right in the face of what Joe was talking about in terms of rule of law.

That's because I understand the difference between being a judge and being an advocate. As an advocate, I would probably agree with Joe more often than not. However, as a judge, it would be my job to set aside what policies I might favor on the merits and commit myself to enforcing the law as it's written. That means I'd vote to affirm a state law that I might abhor (like banning handguns). My politics wouldn't matter. That's what a judge is supposed to do.