Thousands of former justice officials call on Barr to resign

[zantax]

@H_Arendt

Any reading of the Constitution is an interpretation – which is why precedent – accumulated wisdom – is so important. It takes quite a bit of arrogance to announce that after 230 years you suddenly have it right.

Like when the court suddenly discovered marriage included same sex marriage?

[H_Arendt]

@zantax

@H_Arendt

Any reading of the Constitution is an interpretation – which is why precedent – accumulated wisdom – is so important. It takes quite a bit of arrogance to announce that after 230 years you suddenly have it right.

Like when the court suddenly discovered marriage included same sex marriage?

Since you have given up trying to provide an historical defense of 2A, you’ve switched to whataboutism.

Okay, I’ll go with you. You are referring to the Obergefell decision. What part if the Constitution was violated by the majority decision in Obergefell.

Hint: marriage is not defined in the Constitution, but the notion of equal treatment under the law is.

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

which is why precedent – accumulated wisdom

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

Since you have given up trying to provide an historical defense of 2A,

I’m your huckleberry.

[Steel-W0LF]

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

You should read Scalia’s decision in Heller. As a judicial activist he rewrote 2A in that decision to the NRA’s widhes but left the door wide open for restrictions such as background checks.

He did no such thing. First of all, he wasn’t saying anything new there. The vast majority of people already understood it wasn’t completely unrestricted. At least I have never seen anyone actually advocate we allow inmates or even people in criminal court be armed.

Secondly, saying it can be restricted is not remotely sanctioning any restriction you care to dream up.

Find one prior court decision that held that 2A conveyed an individual right to bear arms, independent of the militia. Scalia was rewriting the Constitution on the fly – like the conservative judicial activist he was.

And then Scalia wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . Nothing in our opinion today should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms"

which completely undermines the knee-jerk reaction that any gun control legislation violated 2A.

Completely unsupported. No, not any, longstanding. As for rewriting the constitution, the plain language of the document thoroughly supports his ruling. He didn’t rewrite the constitution, he brought the court into line with it.

The reason you cannot answer my question – find one decision that supports your interpretation – is that for two centuries judges ruled on the basis of the actual amendment, including the militia clause and knew, historically that the militia clause was inserted to get the slave states to accept the Federalist insistence on a standing army.

Constitutional jurisprudence rests on prior decisions one can cite, not on personal preference.

Any good history of the Constitutional convention will clue you in to how 2A was rooted in the desire to protect slavery. Embarrassing but true.

You should read the reasoning behind US vs Miller (1931?)

Then after reading it you can subtract at least 80 years off of your 2 centuries estimate.

[Plasmaball]

Why? They meet at least yearly about things…this time it’s because your boy decided to break with ethics again… because that’s what he does because you allow it.

[Plasmaball]

True…minus the 4 that resigned from the case and the internal rumblings that more were gonna quit whole sale…

But shrug it off…you like the corruption because ots your side doing it. Wait till it’s a dem and you all start fainting and pearl clutching. .

[zantax]

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

Any reading of the Constitution is an interpretation – which is why precedent – accumulated wisdom – is so important. It takes quite a bit of arrogance to announce that after 230 years you suddenly have it right.

Like when the court suddenly discovered marriage included same sex marriage?

Since you have given up trying to provide an historical defense of 2A, you’ve switched to whataboutism.

Okay, I’ll go with you. You are referring to the Obergefell decision. What part if the Constitution was violated by the majority decision in Obergefell.

Hint: marriage is not defined in the Constitution, but the notion of equal treatment under the law is.

Two problems.

One, the court had previously ruled gay marriage was not a constitutional question.

Two, they redefined the word marriage to make it fit.

The constitutional problem lies in redefining the words in statutes.

[PeterGriffin]

It’s always a good look when a couple thousand of your former colleagues and peers put their name on something that says you need to quit your job.

Left unspoken is the “before you get indicted”.

[zantax]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me, what percentage of former DOH officials does the number 2000 represent? 10%? 50%? 90%? Seems rather important. Going to be embarrassing if the answer is single digit or low double digits, in regard to this meaning anything.

[H_Arendt]

@Steel-W0LF

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

You should read Scalia’s decision in Heller. As a judicial activist he rewrote 2A in that decision to the NRA’s widhes but left the door wide open for restrictions such as background checks.

He did no such thing. First of all, he wasn’t saying anything new there. The vast majority of people already understood it wasn’t completely unrestricted. At least I have never seen anyone actually advocate we allow inmates or even people in criminal court be armed.

Secondly, saying it can be restricted is not remotely sanctioning any restriction you care to dream up.

Find one prior court decision that held that 2A conveyed an individual right to bear arms, independent of the militia. Scalia was rewriting the Constitution on the fly – like the conservative judicial activist he was.

And then Scalia wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . Nothing in our opinion today should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms"

which completely undermines the knee-jerk reaction that any gun control legislation violated 2A.

Completely unsupported. No, not any, longstanding. As for rewriting the constitution, the plain language of the document thoroughly supports his ruling. He didn’t rewrite the constitution, he brought the court into line with it.

The reason you cannot answer my question – find one decision that supports your interpretation – is that for two centuries judges ruled on the basis of the actual amendment, including the militia clause and knew, historically that the militia clause was inserted to get the slave states to accept the Federalist insistence on a standing army.

Constitutional jurisprudence rests on prior decisions one can cite, not on personal preference.

Any good history of the Constitutional convention will clue you in to how 2A was rooted in the desire to protect slavery. Embarrassing but true.

You should read the reasoning behind US vs Miller (1931?)

Then after reading it you can subtract at least 80 years off of your 2 centuries estimate.

A ruling so ambiguous it is used by both sides of the gun rights debate to support their positions. The court rejected the challenge to guns statutes (the pro-gun control interpretation) and reasserted the association of weapons with the well-regulated militia clause (the anti gun control interpretation.). But what we are arguing here is Scalia’s ignoring the well regulated militia clause, which makes the case irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[zantax]

@H_Arendt

But what we are arguing here is Scalia’s ignoring the well regulated militia clause, which makes the case irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

He did no such thing.

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

The reason you cannot answer my question – find one decision that supports your interpretation – is that for two centuries judges ruled on the basis of the actual amendment, including the militia clause and knew, historically that the militia clause was inserted to get the slave states to accept the Federalist insistence on a standing army.

Constitutional jurisprudence rests on prior decisions one can cite, not on personal preference.

Any good history of the Constitutional convention will clue you in to how 2A was rooted in the desire to protect slavery. Embarrassing but true.

2 centuries? I thought you wanted to discuss the history of it?

Slavery? The right to keep and bear arms is rooted in English Common Law.

Try again.

[DougBH]

@PeterGriffin

It’s always a good look when a couple thousand of your former colleagues and peers put their name on something that says you need to quit your job.

Left unspoken is the “before you get indicted”.

I don’t remember voting for a couple of thousand ex DOJ employees to select my AG.

[Bodecea]

@Guvnah

FORMER officials.

Always FORMER or EX this-or-that.

Shrug.

Yes…and? Just like FOX has FORMER officials on as experts. Should they be ignored too?

[WuWei]

@Bodecea

@Guvnah

FORMER officials.

Always FORMER or EX this-or-that.

Shrug.

Yes…and? Just like FOX has FORMER officials on as experts. Should they be ignored too?

Yes. Lord yes!

[Bomberfox]

Lol so much winning you cant be bothered to show links.

[Bomberfox]

If twump loses im sure theres going to be lots for Barr to answer for.

[Bomberfox]

After that, its holding federal worker’s paychecks hostage for as long as they feel like it.

[Bomberfox]

Lol. Deflecting is your biggest thing eh?