Scalia Dead - Supreme Court No longer has a Gun Friendly Majority

[OC for ME]

Phhhht! Factionalism is factionalism. Been going on in the US since literally before the constitution was ratified; before the convention itself.

Create a power center with a monopoly on the use of force, and what does anybody expect to happen?

Factionalism is the bedrock of our constitutional republic....given the requirement for having three branches of government. Our political system was designed to be a blood sport from the get-go.

 

[georg jetson]

Factionalism is the bedrock of our constitutional republic....given the requirement for having three branches of government. Our political system was designed to be a blood sport from the get-go.

Amen to that! Efficient government is efficient tyranny.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Oh, I don't know. I think User's comment about bigger and heavier further and faster holds true in the understood context.

Yes, Xerxes bridged the Hellespont (1300 meters?), but he had to use pontoons (boats) and massive flax cables to do it. Without blast furnace technology to make steel, something like the Golden Gate bridge or the Verrazano Bridge were out of the question.

And, lets not overlook the thousands of people sitting in chairs in the sky these days.* Nor, little basic things like asphalt shingles--boy, I'd hate to have to re-thatch my roof every several years. And, what about electric light. Not counting those darned fluorescent curly-cue light bulbs, it is kinda nice to flip a switch instead of hunt around for matches, then light the wick on a kerosene lamp. And, central heat. Oh, my. No more having to bank the coals at bedtime, then wake up to a cold house and get the fire restarted.

But for all that advance--as User points out--the fundamentals of human nature haven't changed.




*I borrowed that one from Louis CK. During an interview, he discussed people who whine about their latest air-travel. He asks, "But...did you partake in the miracle of human flight?...You're sitting in a chair in the sky!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akiVi1sR2rM

Prove that there was not electricity in the pyramids.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

Prove that there was not electricity in the pyramids.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Are you asking me to prove a negative, with positive statements? Or, just discuss the potential difference between then and now?


ETA: Oh, mmm. I don't know. Should we amp up this discussion and maybe divert the current thread topic? Surely, we'll meet resistance from the other participants. Maybe even the moderator.

 

[solus]

Are you asking me to prove a negative, with positive statements? Or, just discuss the potential difference between then and now? ETA: Oh, mmm. I don't know. Should we amp up this discussion and maybe divert the current thread topic? Surely, we'll meet resistance from the other participants. Maybe even the moderator.

ipse

 

[Citizen]

Factionalism is the bedrock of our constitutional republic....given the requirement for having three branches of government. Our political system was designed to be a blood sport from the get-go.

Yep. And, parasites enjoy blood.

In his book, Hologram of Liberty, Kenneth Royce calls attention to a letter from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in late winter (February, I think.) of 1787. In so many words, Hamilton conveys that a convention being called to improve the Articles of Confederation will shift into a convention to write a new scheme of government. That is to say, as early as late winter of 1787, Alexander Hamilton knew about the plans.

Now, watch closely. Very early in the constitutional convention, a number of delegates got up and walked out in protest, expressly stating they were only authorized by their legislatures to work out improving the Articles of Confederation. That necessarily means that state governments were deceived about the actual motive for calling the convention. The states sent delegates thinking the delegates would be working out improvements to the Articles of Confederation. Yet, based on Hamilton's letter to Geo. Washington, there was a plan already in place months earlier to shift the convention into writing a new scheme of government.

On a totally different track, a little research will show how Shay's Rebellion was used to scare property interests into supporting a stronger government. Shay's Rebellion is often characterized as a tax revolt. That is only part of the picture, and not the most important part, neither. Recall the continental dollars issued during the revolution by the continental congress. Because so many were issued, they fell to cents on the dollar, thus the phrase, "not worth a continental". Same thing happened to other state debt. The people in Shay's Rebellion had supported the revolution by buying bonds and such (loans to government--that's what a bond or other debt instrument is: a loan.) But, that paper fell to cents on the dollar because the state issued vast amounts of it. So, the people in Massachusetts sold their debt instruments for pennies on the dollar, taking significant losses. But, speculators came in and bought up the debt for pennies on the dollar. Then lobbied the legislature to pass a law paying them at face value. Any doubts about the quid pro quo on that one? The Massachusetts legislature passed a law that increased taxes to pay for paying off the state debt instruments at face value. The upshot? People who supported the revolution got burned when their debt instruments fell to pennies on the dollar. Then they got burned again when taxes were raised to pay off speculators at face value. Basically, they got burned twice on one transaction! Of course they rebelled!! Who wouldn't?

But, the full explanation was not given when fear-mongering about Shay's Rebellion was used to gather support for the constitution.

A whole different angle: no matter what a fella might think about the Federalists (supporters of the constitution) during the convention and during the ratification period, there is no denying the historical facts about the Federalists after the constitution was ratified. Do you hate the idea of congress and the president twisting the constitution? Guess who. Alexander Hamilton--arch Federalist--was George Washington's Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton convinced Washington of the implied powers doctrine. Don't care for a Supreme Court interpreting the constitution? Guess who. Chief Justice John Marshall--arch Federalist--wrote Marbury vs Madison, the case where the US Supreme Court snatched to itself the power to interpret the constitution. Don't care for government restrictions on your freedom of speech and press? Guess who. President John Adams (arch Federalist) and a group of Federalists in congress made it illegal to criticize the federal government (Alien and Sedition Acts). People actually went to prison for that one.

So, yes. Factionalism was the bedrock, and it was a blood sport from literally before the beginning. The Federalists were the first faction. And, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and numerous other anti-Federalists arguing stridently against a strong central government, and the constitution in particular, were the other faction. Just remember, they were fighting a defensive operation. It was the Federalists who started the fight--when somebody thought up the idea to create a new scheme of government and deceive the state legislatures about the plan.

 

[nonameisgood]

Maybe the senate should wait and see who is nominated before coming unglued. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

What our "constitutional scholar" CinC continues to "misremember" is that there is no time frame directed to advice and consent by the senate in the constitution.

 

[nonameisgood]

What our "constitutional scholar" CinC continues to "misremember" is that there is no time frame directed to advice and consent by the senate in the constitution.

He knows that, but he also knows that if he stands up to the playground bullies (GOP) then they get to make that decision and suffer the repercussions. The GOP senators are posturing for the election instead of simply doing the task set before them - advise and consent. Lots of talk, not much action. And they started talking publicly before the body was cold. No class. Any of them.

IIRC, the Constitution says nothing about "the candidate must be approved by a majority vote of the senators." But that's a different discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nonameisgood]

The two names being flogged/flagged ATM are AG Loretta Lynch and Principal Deputy US Solicitor Sri Srinvasa. Only progs are saluting.

I'm not saying I like his candidates, but at least if he proposes someone who is reasonably objectionable the senate has cover. "The candidate he put forward was really not a good choice"
I think the senate would do well to actual do some advising with the President. Be senatorial and see if they can all agree on a good choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

I'm not saying I like his candidates, but at least if he proposes someone who is reasonably objectionable the senate has cover. "The candidate he put forward was really not a good choice"
I think the senate would do well to actual do some advising with the President. Be senatorial and see if they can all agree on a good choice.

Your premise fails at this point.

There cannot be a choice from a democrat, radical anti-liberty liberal, that should ever be agreeable to any individual liberty focused politician.

Yes, I do understand that I am speaking to a non-reality as to the existence of individual liberty focused politicians. nitghmare has a very apropos quote regarding compromise...I need to find it and add it to my signature area.

 

[nonameisgood]

Senate rules apply to the Senate.

And it is likely Presidents and demagogues who have devolved the process to one of "take it it leave it" instead of attempting to get consensus prior to nominating. Not saying it would work, just that what we have now is kind of childish.
If I had a child who acted like Ted Cruz or any of a number of the senators, I would have the paddle out, figuratively speaking. Why can't we elect emotionally stable, mature adults?

I'm glad we can all agree that no one in either party gives two shakes about real liberty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Senate rules apply to the Senate.

And it is likely Presidents and demagogues who have devolved the process to one of "take it it leave it" instead of attempting to get consensus prior to nominating. Not saying it would work, just that what we have now is kind of childish.
If I had a child who acted like Ted Cruz or any of a number of the senators, I would have the paddle out, figuratively speaking. Why can't we elect emotionally stable, mature adults?

I'm glad we can all agree that no one in either party gives two shakes about real liberty.

Well...my elected rep is emotionally stable and a adult...yours? Not so much...get it?

 

[OC for ME]

It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance.

Promptly stolen and will accord you the attribution you deserve.

 

[nonameisgood]

Well...my elected rep is emotionally stable and a adult...yours? Not so much...get it?

I voted libertarian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[F350]

Senate rules apply to the Senate.

And it is likely Presidents and demagogues who have devolved the process to one of "take it it leave it" instead of attempting to get consensus prior to nominating. Not saying it would work, just that what we have now is kind of childish.
If I had a child who acted like Ted Cruz or any of a number of the senators, I would have the paddle out, figuratively speaking. Why can't we elect emotionally stable, mature adults?

I'm glad we can all agree that no one in either party gives two shakes about real liberty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps you forget (or hope we do) this from your side; and it was 18 months before the end of W's term...

http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/watch-hypocrisy-chuck-schumer-says-he-14382106/

 

[user]

Judge William Byrd Traxler, Jr. wrote the majority opinion in Kolbe v Hogan; appointed to the USDC by Bush, and to the 4th C. Ct. Apps by Clinton. Now chief judge. From S.C.

I suggest we write in and tell PotUS to nominate him for US Sup Ct position. (without any reference to "gun rights")

 

[user]

I voted libertarian...

I do that whenever I want to reply to the multiple-choice test with "D - None of the Above." The vote gets counted and represents a protest.

 

[nonameisgood]

My glib comment about the maturity of our representatives was tongue in cheek. My response was, while true, also meant with levity.

All I really mean to say is that I wish our legislature would legislate rather than play popularity games. I know the reality of getting elected and trying to get your compatriots/cronies elected, but it really shouldn't interfere with the business of governing.

Back to the topic at hand, it would be nice if a liberal who wouldn't bring politics to the bench was nominated. Or a conservative who wouldn't bring their own beliefs to the bench. Just be the best jurist and not try to make a legacy for the "progress" you force onto society. My preference is for the selected Justice to be willing to nullify bad laws, support plaintiffs with just causes, and err on the side of the People.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[utbagpiper]

Back to the topic at hand, it would be nice if a liberal who wouldn't bring politics to the bench was nominated. Or a conservative who wouldn't bring their own beliefs to the bench. Just be the best jurist and not try to make a legacy for the "progress" you force onto society. My preference is for the selected Justice to be willing to nullify bad laws, support plaintiffs with just causes, and err on the side of the People.

But there is the rub. I think there are really only two ways to apply the constitution: Either Constitutional (and other legislative) language means what it meant when it was written, or it means whatever you can twist it into meaning.

Liberals almost universally hate original intent, textualism, or originalism. Most will argue that such is just an excuse for "bigotry" and that the living document view is the only one that suites a modern society. Sandra Day O'Conner was the most honest in this regard when she argued that while the constitution did not currently ban affirmative action, one day it might (with no hint that there might be an intervening ConAmd).

With the Amendment process we've ended slavery, guaranteed the full rights of citizenship to former slaves and their posterity, granted the franchise to women and 18 year olds, outlawed and then re-legalized recreational alcohol consumption, moved the date for presidents and congressmen to take office, and made other major and mundane changes. But that process is slow and actually requires popular consensus. Liberals so much prefer to just foist their grand ideas on us.

If I were to suggest that the 13th Amd ban on slavery or involuntary servitude bans mandatory jury duty, most thoughtful folks would laugh and realize that was never the intent of the 13th amendment. Yet we have the courts wresting the 14th amendment to force States to re-define marriage, and the "penumbra" of the 4th and 5th amendments to force States to permit elective abortions. Half the justices have made pretty clear that they think the 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment should now ban all executions.

Give me a justice who strictly upholds original intent and I don't care whether his personal views are liberal, conservative, libertarian, or statist. The federal constitution contains elements of all of these social/political philosophies. An honest and qualified jurist knows when to apply which based on the black letter written word and the debates surrounding adoption of those words. Any other approach is simply cloaking one's personal views with constitutional language. And whether those personal views or liberal, conservative, or anything else, doesn't much matter because for every time such personal views will get it right, there will be 3 or 4 times they get it wrong.

Charles