Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's conservative majority

[Hokie_PhD]

By and large, originalism is just BS, an excuse to justify rulings which totally ignore modern societal reality...when convenient.

My question is this. I know guns are important to us, but should they be the only thing that is? Is no other issue that might come before the court important? What about social justice? The role of money in our elections? And so many more? Single issue advocates seldom do the country or themselves any good as current events clearly demonstrate.

The media neglects that most people in this country aren’t “swing voters” nor are they conservative nor liberal. Most are somewhere in the middle. They may be liberal on one issue and conservative on another and indifferent on yet another.

That said, I think that we’re seeing push back of a hard ouch but extremists on both sides.

I’ve always said I’m a “radical independent moderate” and moderates don’t get news because a middle ground isn’t exciting nor make good news,

It’s funny as the push by the left has pushed me far right on the 2nd Amendment. And as the right that protects others I see it as the most important thing right now. A close second would be the economy. The one that we were told would never go above 1% GDP which is now over 4.

You mention social justice. My PhD work had a huge component of social studies and I’ve concluded that the biggest social justice warriors are only worried about feeding their fragile egos. They don’t get that hard work is a virtue and that the real way to have social justice is to live what you speak. I’d rather create a job than give handouts. I’d rather teach someone to read then give them welfare for life. I’d rather help them build a Habitat home than put them in public housing. And I’m not alone, in fact we’re the silent majority that are frustrated.

Now not to get too far off track, the reality is we all live in the real world. We pick and choose our causes. What we’ll do and not do. Who we support and don’t support.

Sadly I see the extremists desperate. So they have given up on civility. I see a nasty fight ahead. One the majority have not asked for and don’t want. But hopefully, once the Supreme Court returns to doing its job not the job of Congress then maybe things will settle down.

Personally I’m cautiously optimistic about Gorsuch, and I hope the next Justice is like he appears to be. A few more in ghat mold if they stay true to it would make me very happy overall. Sure I may not like some of the decisions, but that’s what happens in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC where we have a representative government.

 

[fpgt72]

Chuck Schumer stated today that peoples' rights are at risk because of the retirement of Chief Justice Kennedy. Apparently he believes that people have "the right" to deny others their Constitutional rights , the Right To Bear Arms being a real good place to start.

As stated , elections have consequences. In this case , we get to keep the Constitution- AND our firearms!

I like how he said we need to wait till the next election to appoint....and it is the same as the R's did last time around....really, I did not know this was an election year.

I really had hope it was Ginsberg that was going to retire.....hopefully she will retire during Trumps NEXT term.

 

[rpenmanparker]

rpen’, the 2nd amendment grants the right to the people, not the militia. Militia membership was never a prerequisite to being covered. Being part of the people was the prerequisite. We are all still part of the people, and thus covered by the right, regardless of militia status.

I’m for justices who will protect individual rights. This includes, but is not limited to, the rights afforded by the 2nd.

You are missing the power of logical analysis of the 2nd amendment. Militia existence is not a prerequisite for gun ownership, i.e. not a NECESSARY condition, but it is a SUFFICIENT condition. 2A is basically an if/then logical statement: If militias are important, then we cannot keep the people from owning guns. Then they stipulated that militias were, in fact important. Logical statements have rules for understanding what they mean. When "if" changes to "not if", that does not mean that "then" logically changes to "not then". IOW the disappearance of the importance of the militia does not mean that gun ownership must also disappear. Are we still together on this?

But "not then" becomes as possible as "then". Or put into this topical frame, not allowing gun ownership becomes as possible as allowing it. Put another way, without militias, logically speaking, 2A has nothing whatsoever to say about gun ownership. It becomes null and void. Written this way 2A is actually a very weak statement. Wouldn't an originalist have to think that if the framers wanted unconditional private gun ownership, they would have crafted an unconditional amendment? But they didn't do that. They clearly provided a sufficient condition for gun ownership, the need for the militia. They did not express the condition as necessary, only sufficient. So an originalist doesn't have to strike down gun ownership on the basis of the disappearance of militias, but they could if so disposed. If the framers wanted unconditional gun ownership, they could have easily said that by leaving out the militia clause. It's funny really, because that was the period when logical thought in full bloom. You would have thought they would have realized they were producing a very poor rule...logically speaking.

 

[GEM]

I have deleted posts that are pure partisan politics as relates to the Court. I have also deleted posts that wander into other issues besides gun rights. If they make you all hot and bothered about the Court, well, they don't make us. So keep on how this related to gun rights issues.

 

[Wisco]

You can't have it both ways. You either want originalism or you don't. Or maybe you can have it both ways with a liberal-minded justice who is beholden to the law and not conservative dogma.

Originalism isn’t only what you want, or think it to be, or what you’ve been told it is. There are different kinds of it - textualism, original intent, original meaning. Some is BS. The stuff that isn’t BS is better than a living constitution...by far.

 

[Tommygunn]

You are missing the power of logical analysis of the 2nd amendment. Militia existence is not a prerequisite for gun ownership, i.e. not a NECESSARY condition, but it is a SUFFICIENT condition. 2A is basically an if/then logical statement: If militias are important, then we cannot keep the people from owning guns. Then they stipulated that militias were, in fact important. Logical statements have rules for understanding what they mean. When "if" changes to "not if", that does not mean that "then" logically changes to "not then". IOW the disappearance of the importance of the militia does not mean that gun ownership must also disappear. Are we still together on this?

But "not then" becomes as possible as "then". Or put into this topical frame, not allowing gun ownership becomes as possible as allowing it. Put another way, without militias, logically speaking, 2A has nothing whatsoever to say about gun ownership. It becomes null and void. Written this way 2A is actually a very weak statement. Wouldn't an originalist have to think that if the framers wanted unconditional private gun ownership, they would have crafted an unconditional amendment? But they didn't do that. They clearly provided a sufficient condition for gun ownership, the need for the militia. They did not express the condition as necessary, only sufficient. So an originalist doesn't have to strike down gun ownership on the basis of the disappearance of militias, but they could if so disposed. If the framers wanted unconditional gun ownership, they could have easily said that by leaving out the militia clause. It's funny really, because that was the period when logical thought in full bloom. You would have thought they would have realized they were producing a very poor rule...logically speaking.

You're splitting hairs, getting caught up in semantic dogma which is unnecessarily complicating your argument, IMHO. The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" definativly attaches the right to ownership sufficientl, as is, so that the existance of a militia is not relevant.
IMHO, you're making a very similar mistake, atleast in your conclusion as you derive it, that many gun banners do when they erroneously say the first "militia" clause in the 2A means that the govt can "regulate" militias and thus can ban certain types of bearable weapons.

 

[Elkins45]

RKBA got lucky with Gorsuch.

Are we sure about this? Unless I'm mistaken, Gorsuch has yet to rule on a 2A case. We're just hopefully speculating at this point.

 

[Skgreen]

Back before I picked up firearms as a hobby, I was of the opinion there was no real reason to change / modify gun laws. Sure, you'd hear about someone getting shot during a crime, but with the exception of the UT tower shooter, there really was no 'medium/large scale' shootings.

Today, with all the death/negativity folks see on the news associated (in one way or another) with firearms, I tend to wonder, had I not started this hobby, would I still feel the same,,,

 

[rpenmanparker]

You're splitting hairs, getting caught up in semantic dogma which is unnecessarily complicating your argument, IMHO. The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" definativly attaches the right to ownership sufficientl, as is, so that the existance of a militia is not relevant.
IMHO, you're making a very similar mistake, atleast in your conclusion as you derive it, that many gun banners do when they erroneously say the first "militia" clause in the 2A means that the govt can "regulate" militias and thus can ban certain types of bearable weapons.

I hate to tell you but splitting hairs is what the SC is all about.

 

[Wisco]

Are we sure about this? Unless I'm mistaken, Gorsuch has yet to rule on a 2A case. We're just hopefully speculating at this point.

Nothing is ever for sure and anything is possible. He could very well render an anti-2A vote, but that doesn’t seem likely.

 

[ATLDave]

'rpen, you are reading the prefatory clause as being a conditional clause. If the language said "FOR SO LONG AS a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right...." you would have a point.

Of course, it does not say that.

 

[rpenmanparker]

'rpen, you are reading the prefatory clause as being a conditional clause. If the language said "FOR SO LONG AS a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right...." you would have a point.

Of course, it does not say that.

To me it says, “Because the militia is important,...”. That can be taken apart as “If a militia is important...” and “It is true a militia is important.” But remember this does NOT mean that the right to gun ownership depends on the militia in any case. It means that you must have the gun ownership as long as militias are important. Without the militia, the requirement goes away and it is up to other considerations what to do.

 

[ATLDave]

No, the importance of the militia is a finding. It's not up for disproof, absent a constitutional amendment.

Read Heller. This is not some imponderable. This is a question the Supreme Court answered. Not everyone agrees, but none of this is novel argument.

 

[rpenmanparker]

No, the importance of the militia is a finding. It's not up for disproof, absent a constitutional amendment.

Read Heller. This is not some imponderable. This is a question the Supreme Court answered. Not everyone agrees, but none of this is novel argument.

Problem is, it is not a matter of law but rather of language. Logic is very specific, almost like a physical science. If you violate the logical rules, you cannot be right. Folks on forums like this often claim others can’t read. Perhaps that applies to SC justices too.

 

[ATLDave]

Perhaps lawyers (like Supreme Court justices and some people here) read one way, and whatever background you have trains another way of reading.

And when the subject is law, it is how lawyers read (and wrote - Madison was a lawyer) that matters.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Basically the logic of the amendment says that without the militia existence there is no requirement for the gun ownership right. Not that folks can’t still be allowed to own guns, but there is no requirement that they be allowed to do so. So whatever the court decides, it is new law.

 

[ATLDave]

The relevant jurists do not think your reading is correct. And I don't either. You are, of course, entitled to any opinion you choose, thanks to the immediately-prior amendment.

 

[ilbob]

[A repost of something that was deleted due to a couple of words the mods don't like}

I am more interested in seeing more justices like Gorsuch who would return our enumerated rights to their proper place. It seems like the liberal side of the court only cares about rights that cannot be found in the constitution at all [obvious examples deleted] and anything else the government does to its citizens is OK. The so called conservative side of the court is a little better at not making up rights that do not nor ever existed but is no better at protecting us from our own government, which is their primary, and only truly important duty.

I want to see the first ten amendments be meaningful before we start making up more rights out of thin air.

Added thoughts: It seems to me that any improvement in standing for other enumerated rights almost has to improve the RTKBA. We need to push for more justices who are in favor of liberty in general and not just one tiny corner of liberty, the most important of those liberties being those enshrined in the BOR. No judge will ever be perfect on every issue so we can best hope for those who lean in favor of liberty over authoritarianism. Right now most judges are authoritarians of one sort or another.

 

[rpenmanparker]

The relevant jurists do not think your reading is correct. And I don't either. You are, of course, entitled to any opinion you choose, thanks to the immediately-prior amendment.

Thanks for the discussion, Dave. Let's do it again sometime.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

I randomly looked up the tenure of the justices today, and was surprised at the tenure of some current and past judges. 30 years plus in many cases, which means a relatively young judge was apponted and they had a long life free of major health concerns that would cause retirement.

Kinda just proves to me that it's a "skate" job and easy money...
Like many of us here I too hope the replacement is for supporting Individual Rights and upholding the Constitution.

 

[ATLDave]

Kinda just proves to me that it's a "skate" job and easy money...

LOL! It's a "skate" job in that people who get picked for it generally have legal analysis as both their vocation and their hobby. They generally work quite hard. The money is OK, but any one of them could leave the bench and go into private practice and make 10-30 times the amount they are making on the court. It is a sweet gig, if you're the kind of person who would get picked for it. But there is nothing "skate" about it, except to the extent that any job is less onerous if you love it.

 

[roscoe]

There is no particular 2A push by this administration, and no reason to expect that it would be a priority for a SCOTUS nominee.

 

[Tommygunn]

I hate to tell you but splitting hairs is what the SC is all about.

Sorry if I suggested I was discussing SCOTUS. I was discussing the 2nd Amendment itself and the meaning of the words.


I have given up trying to figure out screwy judicial decisions ever since Justice Roberts figured how to parse out the court's decisions on Obamacare and how it wound up Constitutional.

 

[Deanimator]

Wait until Ginsburg assumes room temperature, then challenge the NFA '34, GCA '68, Brady Bill and Hughes Amendment.

 

[Sistema1927]

Wait until Ginsburg assumes room temperature, then challenge the NFA '34, GCA '68, Brady Bill and Hughes Amendment.

Are you sure that she hasn't already? Some taxidermists are very good.