24 hour countdown!

Looks like 24 hours or less until we get to see Mr. Fenty admit defeat.

Who is staying home tomorrow just to watch?

I'll make the popcorn.

I'm not staying home, but it WILL be difficult to work with both of my fingers crossed!

After the last decision giving detainees Constitutional Rights, I'm really worried about what kind of 'decision' will be handed down.

After the last decision giving detainees Constitutional Rights, I'm really worried about what kind of 'decision' will be handed down.

Well, if they are so intent on making sure everyone gets rights guaranteed in the Constitution then Heller should be a shoe in.

If terrorists in Gitmo are entitled to the Bill of Rights then surely the defenseless in DC are entitled to the same.

(I'm trying to keep a positive outlook lol)

Well said, TexasRifleman.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.....

Given the court's recent track record one cannot be too careful.

Who is staying home tomorrow just to watch?

…or this Thursday, or later this year…

Talk about cruel and unusual punishment… :(

I am not going to hold my breath. The way they have been going, it is a soap opera, are a comedy.

I predict that by 10:08 AM CST tomorrow morning this board will be lit up like a christmas tree. Just hope it's cheers.

After they upheld McCain-Feingold, after Kelo v. New London, and after giving the Gitmo detainees full civil rights, I will believe we get a favorable ruling out of this court when I read it for myself.

We also have two new Bush appointees on the court... Given the Bush track record for making the right choices, I would say anything could happen, and most is not good.

I'd like to stay home but unfortunately can't.It's going to be announced tomorrow that's almost a given.
Who will be the lucky THR member to announce it to the world?:)
That will be the most active one day thread in the forum's history,IMO.

I don't get what seems to be widespread annoyance of Gitmo. From what I understand, the decision meant that torture is illegal to Guantanamo Bay inmates. Says a lot for your belief in inalienable rights; cruel and unusual punishment, coercion to self-incrimination, due process of law... it applies to EVERYONE, irrespective of their nation of birth. That's what an inalienable right is. Same applies for the RKBA.

Right on Matt87.
These inalienable rights were given to humans from God and as such apply to all of us regardless of where we were born or any other distinction. These rights were not given to us from the government, only recognized as pre-existing rights. Hence, it doesn't matter which way Heller goes, we still have the right to self defense by ordinary means.

These inalienable rights were given to humans from God and as such apply to all of us regardless of where we were born or any other distinction.

Thread drift incoming :)

That is true, these ARE inalienable rights but the right of the United States to protect itself from criminals or enemies during wartime has been upheld as well. Whether that right is "God given" is up for argument as regards a country but it's clear that many of these inalienable rights can be suspended for some purpose or another, else we would have no prisons or executions. You can't deprive someone of their freedom right? Let's open all the jails then, see how that works.

The argument was never about whether the Gitmo detainees had inalienable rights, it was whether or not the government could suspend those rights in certain circumstances.

In all the comments RE: Heller what I haven't seen is the simple observation that it really doesn't make a tinkers dam (dam...not damn) what the SC has to say. The simple clear truth is that anyone that can read English can understand both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Lawyerly discourse tends only to obfiscuscate it and likely is best ignored.

To that end, at least on my behalf, I don't really care what decision the SC renders. The 2nd is my right as an American citizen whose roots go back to before this was the United States and I will abide by the Constitution as it was written and intended..........

Y'all do as you will! I most certainly intend to.

Gonna be interesting...http://www.1911pistolgrips.com/img/miscwebpics/popcorn.gif

We should care what the SC renders. The Founding Fathers allows the SC to INTERPT the Constitution, by the checks and balances. The House and Senate migh make the laws, but its the SC that interpts them. And once they are inteprted a certain way, only the SC can reinterpts them.

22lr

GD wrote:
These inalienable rights were given to humans from God and as such apply to all of us regardless of where we were born or any other distinction.

TexasRifleman wrote: That is true, these ARE inalienable rights but the right of the United States to protect itself from criminals or enemies during wartime has been upheld as well. Whether that right is "God given" is up for argument as regards a country but it's clear that many of these inalienable rights can be suspended for some purpose or another, else we would have no prisons or executions. You can't deprive someone of their freedom right? Let's open all the jails then, see how that works.

Nobody has the right to torture anyone, for any reason. Torture is not mere "cruelty," or "a certain amount" of pain (which is in itself subjective). Torture is an objective act: the coercion of the free will. Our free will was given to each individual by God. Our lives were, as well. We can forefeit our lives by committing murder. But it is ontologically impossibly for someone to forefeit his own free will, even through his own free will. Torture is an insult, a slap in the face to our Creator, in whose image and likeness every individual was created. Coercing someone's free will is something that God himself refuses to do, yet the individuals in the U.S. government seem to think they're better and wiser than God.

TexasRifleman wrote: The argument was never about whether the Gitmo detainees had inalienable rights, it was whether or not the government could suspend those rights in certain circumstances.

The very definition of "inalienable" is "not capable of being suspended."

-Sans Authoritas

I think the SCOTUS will say the 2A is a citizens right --!
They will also rule-the Federal Gov.and state Govs have the right to restrict the Right to arms -Just as they are allowed to restrict free speech as In yelling fire In a public place to Cause Chaos.
Putting is right back to square one !

Nobody has the right to torture anyone, for any reason. Torture is not mere "cruelty," or "a certain amount" of pain (which is in itself subjective). Torture is an objective act: the coercion of the free will.

Naked chicks dancing on a table in front of me, coaxing $20 bills from my wallet is "coercion" but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to find a jury that will consider it torture.......

I don't WANT to buy a table dance, I HAVE to.

It's all subjective, which is what we're talking about here.

I purposely didn't schedule any field work for tomorrow. I'll stay in my office and catch up on paperwork............... and watch this thing like a hawk.

The simple clear truth is that anyone that can read English can understand both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Lawyerly discourse tends only to obfiscuscate it and likely is best ignored.

To that end, at least on my behalf, I don't really care what decision the SC renders. The 2nd is my right as an American citizen whose roots go back to before this was the United States and I will abide by the Constitution as it was written and intended..........

Y'all do as you will! I most certainly intend to.

I agree with you Dogrunner

Sans Authoritas wrote: Nobody has the right to torture anyone, for any reason. Torture is not mere "cruelty," or "a certain amount" of pain (which is in itself subjective). Torture is an objective act: the coercion of the free will.

Naked chicks dancing on a table in front of me, coaxing $20 bills from my wallet is "coercion" but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to find a jury that will consider it torture.......

I don't WANT to buy a table dance, I HAVE to.

It's all subjective, which is what we're talking about here.

Right. The government came to your house with a gun, drugged you, dragged you to Camp X-Rated and and forced you to be subjected all those things. And then they told you that if you tried to get up and leave, as you morally should, they would kill or cripple you.

Texas, the attempt to coerce someone's will is not subjective. Don't laugh off the animalistic behaviors undertaken by the U.S. government, the same government that sentenced to death those who performed the same actions during WWII. Step back into reality.

-Sans Authoritas

Naked chicks dancing on a table in front of me, coaxing $20 bills from my wallet is "coercion" but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to find a jury that will consider it torture.......

I don't WANT to buy a table dance, I HAVE to.

It's all subjective, which is what we're talking about here.



I think you're trying to inject humor Tex, but I can tell you that I have witnessed countries that pretend to be democratic and civilized and they are the most dangerous. IMO, we are on that slippery slope right now and if it happens, there is no one left in the world to help us back on our feet. Most of the world is anxiously awaiting for the USA to officially become socialistic, and the prelimenary stage is to hide that fact whilst defacto doing as socialists do!
The only two books that mean anything to me is the Bible (and I'm not religious) and the Constitution. Neither allow for indefinitely restricting a persons freedom w/o due process.
JC, had to endure a Sanhedrin that was disloyal to its own rules, need I say more?

Mondays are my home office day. Looks like one more tab open on the browser.... :)

Texas, coercing the will is not subjective. Step back into seriousness and reality.

Ahh but it IS subjective.

There are people that would tell you that a plate of chocolate cake is enough to entice them to give away every secret they know, while men like John McCain and Admiral Stockdale endured tortures beyond anything I'd like to even think about and they say nothing.

Torture is indeed subjective and that exact question of when does "enticing" end and "torture" begin that we're talking about here.

Truly, one man's torture is another man's weekend in Vegas, all humor aside that's a fact.

So we're asking a Court of appointed Justices to decide where that line is. It's VERY subjective.

That's the scary part in this, and what I'm trying to say (granted with a little humor because it's too damn depressing to think about otherwise); that we're sitting here 200+ years after the framers wrote the Second Amendment and although we feel like we have a pretty clear grasp of what they intended we're at the mercy of some appointed Justices. I'm none too comfy with that and frankly I'm a little sick to my stomach tonight in worrying about what they might do tomorrow.

Who will be the lucky THR member to announce it to the world?

That's why I'm staying home! I'm going to get up early, sit at my keyboard, and wait!

;)

Can I get sent to Camp X-Rated?

They can try as hard as they want, but I won't crack. Not ever. No matter how many lap dances I am subjected to.

hey can try as hard as they want, but I won't crack. Not ever. No matter how many lap dances I am subjected to.

See, there's that subjective thing again. What if it was lap dances 24/7 from Rosie O'Donnell?

Would you petition the Supremes for relief?

Texas, offering someone a piece of chocolate cake for information, barring extenuating circumstances (starvation, for example, which is the torture in itself) is not coercion. If I someone is free to accept or decline a piece of cake and walk out the door, there is no coercion. Anyone is free to ask someone for information. Torture is using coercion to break someone's free will until they give away information. Someone who disseminates serious and potentially lethal information because of a piece of chocolate cake has no free will to begin with, as he is a slave to his lower passions.

There is no way that a rational, mature adult could construe offering someone a piece of cake for information as "coercion."

-Sans Authoritas

Torture is using coercion to break someone's free will until they give away information. Someone who disseminates serious and potentially lethal information because of a piece of chocolate cake has no free will to begin with, as he is a slave to his lower passions.


So if I question a criminal suspect and I offer him the choice of life in prison or a free walk if he drops a dime on the guy above him then it's now torture?

He's free to walk but he faces eternal confinement. Is that now "torture"?

That's what I am saying, the whole thing is subjective and now my Second Amendment rights are being interpreted by the same folks.

I think I might be sick :)

I happen to have tommorow off so I am pretty excited that tommorow should be the day for the ruling. I predict a THR crash or at least a slow down due to increased traffic.

Man this is already off topic.. whats all this other jazz got to do with 2nd amendment rights....

We know how we want it to play out.. and we all know how it is really going to play out in real life.. give it a break till it happens.

Man this is already off topic.. whats all this other jazz got to do with 2nd amendment rights....

AMEN!!!

I'm not saying I wouldn't love to go the rounds on the use of torture with those that say, "no way, never, etc.." But alas, those types of conversations have been requested to not be employed here on THR.

In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that things come out in a decidedly positive way for us.

See, there's that subjective thing again. What if it was lap dances 24/7 from Rosie O'Donnell?

I'LL TALK!!! OMG JUST GET IT AWAY! DONATE MY EYES TO SCIENCE, OR WHATEVER IS LEFT OF THEM!

seriously though, the Gitmo ruling - as much as I didn't love it (or hate it either, I have mixed feelings)- I feel was a positive indicator for Heller.

Sans Authoritas wrote: Torture is using coercion to break someone's free will until they give away information. Someone who disseminates serious and potentially lethal information because of a piece of chocolate cake has no free will to begin with, as he is a slave to his lower passions.

TexasRifleman wrote: So if I question a criminal suspect and I offer him the choice of life in prison or a free walk if he drops a dime on the guy above him then it's now torture?

He's free to walk but he faces eternal confinement. Is that now "torture"?

Is that coercion? Is justice really being done by letting a guilty man go for what he did?

The only reason for prison is to keep someone who is dangerous out of society. That's it. It's not a moral bargaining chip. If he's not dangerous, let him go. You're not God's jailer. You don't work his infinite justice on earth by imprisoning people temporally. That's not the main point of punishment on earth. The main point of capital punishment is not to make another person say, "I'd better not kill someone, because he forefeited his life in the act of killing someone and was permanently neutralized as a threat to society." The point is to permanently neutralize a threat to society.

You cannot morally make such a bargain with someone to begin with, so your point is moot.

But let us take a similar example. Say someone comes and tries to break into and steal your car. You pull out a pistol and say, "If you steal my car, I will shoot you." Is that torture? Is that coercing his will? No. You are laying out the consequence to his action. He can either get shot, or not get shot. You're not making him not get shot, and you're not making him get shot.

A torturer trying to extract information, on the other hand, offers no choice. "You will confess or you will continue to be tortured." Torture uses coercing the will as a directed means to an end, whereas you defending your property is an end to itself.

Torturing someone to stop the jingoist, phantasmic "ticking bomb " is using the means of coercion of the will to accomplish the end of "saving America." Shooting someone does not require that his will be coerced in order to accomplish the good end. Shooting someone physically stops him from pursuing his end, whether or not he wants to. It merely stops him from pursuing his unjust action.


TexasRifleman wrote: That's what I am saying, the whole thing is subjective and now my Second Amendment rights are being interpreted by the same folks.


You keep on insisting that it's subjective. It's not something you can blow off so easily. I've seen all these arguments of yours before from other people, Texas. I've answered them all before. Coercing the will is not a subjective feeling. It is an objective action. Just like "rape" is not a subjective feeling, it is an objective action: having sex with someone against that person's will.

-Sans Authoritas

I won't be staying home to watch; I don't think my heart can take it. Kelo, McCain-Feingold, Boumediene; those rulings are supposed to make me optimistic about Heller? Don't try to predict an outcome based on what the Constitution says; the "living breathing" judges don't care.

WHEN we get our favorable ruling, sometime this week, I will be going to the range and just enjoying myself for the evening. I sincerely hope I am not being overly optimistic when I say that our Second Amendment rights will be secured, better defined and finally made undeniable by this ruling and the anti-gunners will be back-peddling all week!

Joe Cool, a blatantly obvious Second Amendment didn't keep politicians from infringing people's rights over a span of 200 years. Why do you think a Supreme Court decision will help? According to U.S. vs. Miller, we should be able to buy and carry around full-auto small arms. I haven't seen any for sale at my local gun shops. I've looked. For some reason, politicians either don't understand plain English, or don't care. But I digress. It's both.

-Sans Authoritas

I haven't seen any for sale at my local gun shops. I've looked. For some reason, politicians either don't understand plain English, or don't care. But I digress. It's both.


SA, despite our word game on the torture thing we're in complete agreement. It's very clear what 2A says but we've been steered so far from the original intent that many can't even tell where it started.

I think it's more of the "don't care" than "don't understand"

It's no word game. But when it comes to "I think it's more of the "don't care" than "don't understand," I'm with you.

-Sans Authoritas

Anyone know what time (CST) The Court usually releases decisions?

CLOSED, for offtopic thread drift.

Pyle, last week, it was 10am. http://www.scotusblog.com usually liveblogs it.