Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist, except when it doesn't suit him.

There seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

"A Militia of One!"

Are these Judges Supreme Court Justices? No? Then they should shut the hell up.

GaryPDX: Are these Judges Supreme Court Justices? No? Then they should shut the hell up.

I would assume this as parody if it came from anyone else, so I'll laugh even though it's you.

Scalia is generally right on the money. His philosophy breaks down on law and order issues like property seizure however.

I admire Scalia a great deal and his opinions are usually masterful. But he has a blind spot.

I don't think the gun rights decision is really inconsistent, whereas some of his law enforcement ones are.

*Reading TFA*

"In fact, Heller encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts."

So basically these judges are saing that the constitution is nothing but a list of suggestions that the people, or their representatives, can violate if it inconveniences them? Since when is enforcing a RIGHT forcing a political agenda.

Wilkinson said elected officials are in a better position to determine gun laws than the courts. He compared the gun case to Roe v. Wade, the abortion rights decision that conservatives consider among the court's worst.

Wrong on so many levels.

1. "elected officials" are lucky to know what end the bullet comes out. Just look at things like the 1994 AWB, HR 1022, the California AWB, etc. Bans that focus on cosmetics, how scary a gun looks, and bans others for the hell of it. Wanting to ban guns that criminals rarely use, but millions of law abiding citizens use. Accusing 50 cal rifle shooters of being terrorists in training, saying that these guns can shoot down aircraft, and other outright lies. Hell, DC classifies any semi-auto gun that can hold more than 12 rounds as a machine gun.

Carolyn McCarthy, one of the biggest gun grabbers in DC, Doesn't even know what she is banning IN HER OWN LEGISLATION (new window)

I can go one mile east of where I live and buy rifles and shotguns out of state, but if I want a handgun, it has to be shipped one mile west to the FFL on the North Dakota side.

I get a ticket if I don't have a muffler on my car, yet I have to pay a $200 sales tax to buy one for my gun.

2. There is nothing in the constitution that refers to abortion, thus it should be a state issue.

Basically, this judges are talking out their *ss. Would they consider Brown vs Board of Education as "bypassing the ballot and seeking to press their political agenda in the courts"?

Crosshair: So basically these judges are saing that the constitution is nothing but a list of suggestions that the people, or their representatives, can violate if it inconveniences them? Since when is enforcing a RIGHT forcing a political agenda.

So I assume you apply this logic to courts that overturn anti-gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws?

DamnYankees: So I assume you apply this logic to courts that overturn anti-gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws?

Where in the US constitution is Marriage mentioned? (Seriously, I might have missed it somewhere, if it's in there, let me know.)

Crosshair: DamnYankees: So I assume you apply this logic to courts that overturn anti-gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws?

Where in the US constitution is Marriage mentioned? (Seriously, I might have missed it somewhere, if it's in there, let me know.)

1) That's a completely irrelevant question, based on your point. If people are enforcing a right they think exists, then there's nothing wrong with that, according to you.
2) Every state constitution is different. When you have a state constitution which bans gender or sexual-orientation discrimination, and the state has found a fundamental right to marry, voila.

The more important point is 1. What you're basically saying is its only political activism if you disagree that the right exists. Talk about post-hoc reasoning.

So basically these judges are saing that the constitution is nothing but a list of suggestions that the people, or their representatives, can violate if it inconveniences them? Since when is enforcing a RIGHT forcing a political agenda.


The right of individuals to bear arms is not guaranteed by the constitution. This right was meant to give states the ability to protect themselves against other states. Ergo, this is a state issue. If states want to give their citizens the right to bear arms, they can pass a law or write it into their constitutions. Likewise, if a state wants to give a municipality the authority to ban certain types of guns, they have the power to do that.

totally obvious. The opnion has nothing to do with the constitution at all. It's just made up shiat.

Where in the US constitution is Marriage mentioned? (Seriously, I might have missed it somewhere, if it's in there, let me know.)


Uhhhh, equal protection clause?

I think you should stop talking, because you obviously don't under the law.

He should give a public speech on this, but not allow any video or audio recording whatsoever. If anyone makes a recording, he should have it confiscated.

Otherwise, what the hell is the point of being "Supreme"?

understand the law..oops

Remove all Republicans: It's time for REAL gun control in this country.

You'd need guns to enforce that.

I get a ticket if I don't have a muffler on my car, yet I have to pay a $200 sales tax to buy one for my gun.

When people putting mufflers on their cars so they can quietly kill people in them becomes a perceived threat, I'll consider this a valid complaint.

Until then I'm just gonna suggest you lay off the crack pipe.

Crosshair: 2. There is nothing in the constitution that refers to abortion, thus it should be a state issue.

You might want to read the "secure in their persons" part of the 4th amendment, as well as the entirety of the 9th amendment.

/There's also that pesky 14th amendment that you might want to take a gander at

Remove all Republicans: It doesn't matter. The thing was written for 200 years ago. We aren't fighting the British anymore. The concern is for our children's safety now, not for people to be able to kill kids who walk onto their property looking for a snack. It's time for REAL gun control in this country.

Yep, Both hands and aiming. That is controlling you gun.

Hold on. Isn't the Supreme Court being asked to clarify here what the Constitution says about rights to bear arms? They are clarifying what the law is, on a national scale, to say that the local law is unconstitutional. Why does anyone think this is outside the role of the judiciary? If the court said the DC ban was indeed constitutional would these people still be arguing about them overreaching their jurisdiction?

My hunting Rifle holds four rounds. My pockets can hold another couple hundred. Classify it however you want, I own it, and the State can't abridge that right. If they force militia membership to reserve this right, I know where to sign up.

iawai: Hold on. Isn't the Supreme Court being asked to clarify here what the Constitution says about rights to bear arms? They are clarifying what the law is, on a national scale, to say that the local law is unconstitutional. Why does anyone think this is outside the role of the judiciary? If the court said the DC ban was indeed constitutional would these people still be arguing about them overreaching their jurisdiction?

So you hold the same for gay marriage and anti-sodomy rulings?

Remove all Republicans: It doesn't matter. The thing was written for 200 years ago. We aren't fighting the British anymore. The concern is for our children's safety now, not for people to be able to kill kids who walk onto their property looking for a snack. It's time for REAL gun control in this country.

We don't need Free speech or rights of assembly now either. And those crazy Constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure - antiquated.

It's the 21st century, we can't learn anything from the last few millennia.

DamnYankees: iawai: Hold on. Isn't the Supreme Court being asked to clarify here what the Constitution says about rights to bear arms? They are clarifying what the law is, on a national scale, to say that the local law is unconstitutional. Why does anyone think this is outside the role of the judiciary? If the court said the DC ban was indeed constitutional would these people still be arguing about them overreaching their jurisdiction?

So you hold the same for gay marriage and anti-sodomy rulings?

I do. It is noones damn business

globalwarmingpraiser: DamnYankees: iawai: Hold on. Isn't the Supreme Court being asked to clarify here what the Constitution says about rights to bear arms? They are clarifying what the law is, on a national scale, to say that the local law is unconstitutional. Why does anyone think this is outside the role of the judiciary? If the court said the DC ban was indeed constitutional would these people still be arguing about them overreaching their jurisdiction?

So you hold the same for gay marriage and anti-sodomy rulings?

I do. It is noones damn business

I'm not talking about policy-wise. I mean in terms of a court's responsibility.

My hunting Rifle holds four rounds. My pockets can hold another couple hundred. Classify it however you want, I own it, and the State can't abridge that right. If they force militia membership to reserve this right, I know where to sign up.


Just because you don't have a constitutional right to gun ownership doesn't mean you can't own a gun. I don't understand how people that want the constitution narrowly construed can cry and scream about the overarching federal government unless a ruling is in favor of something they want. I honestly don't care about the gun ownership issue. What I do care about is the Supreme Court making shiat up.

iawai: Hold on. Isn't the Supreme Court being asked to clarify here what the Constitution says about rights to bear arms? They are clarifying what the law is, on a national scale, to say that the local law is unconstitutional. Why does anyone think this is outside the role of the judiciary? If the court said the DC ban was indeed constitutional would these people still be arguing about them overreaching their jurisdiction?

Despite my disagreement with the ruling, I'm not going to be a hypocrite by calling the SCOTUS a bunch of activists. This is precisely the role that the judiciary is supposed to fulfill, even if that means living with the occasional ass-backwards ruling.

DamnYankees:

So you hold the same for gay marriage and anti-sodomy rulings?

As long as citizens have equal protection under the law (including the right to free association), there is no issue for the Federal government to hear. Nothing is said about marriage or sexual deviancy in the Federal charter (the Constitution), so as long as an inalienable right is not being abridged the Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

/Personally I am disgusted by State's benefits to 'married' peoples, as it is nothing but a private contract between persons.
/And all (non-negligent) crimes are hate crimes

Blues_X: Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist, except when it doesn't suit him.

There seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

This. Usually he's got at least good reasoning. Sometimes that sort of falls by the wayside. I dunno if that's the case here, I didn't read the opinion.

Remove all Republicans: iawai: We don't need Free speech or rights of assembly now either. And those crazy Constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure - antiquated.

No, those are still necessary and relevant, even more so now. Guns aren't safe any longer. They are too easy to get. We need to change that.

Why? What ends are you hoping to achieve here?

If you take guns away from the citizenry, they become dependent on the Government's Monopoly on public defense and beholden to whoever is in charge of those weapons. And making guns illegal doesn't make them disappear. They'll still exist, but only in the hands of those who have already made the decision to live outside the law. That will be a happy ending for sure.

DamnYankees: globalwarmingpraiser: DamnYankees: iawai: Hold on. Isn't the Supreme Court being asked to clarify here what the Constitution says about rights to bear arms? They are clarifying what the law is, on a national scale, to say that the local law is unconstitutional. Why does anyone think this is outside the role of the judiciary? If the court said the DC ban was indeed constitutional would these people still be arguing about them overreaching their jurisdiction?

So you hold the same for gay marriage and anti-sodomy rulings?

I do. It is noones damn business

I'm not talking about policy-wise. I mean in terms of a court's responsibility.

Personally, I understand the people who are opposed to abortion more than I understand the people who are opposed to some sort to legally binding contract between two people. So pretty much I can live with the gay marriage thing. It doesn't affect me and my marraige, I'm not gay.

iawai: We don't need Free speech or rights of assembly now either.

There are plenty of limitations on both of those rights as well, far more than there are limitations on gun ownership across the country as a whole. You can't slander or libel, incite riot, incite violence, incite panic in a crowd, and a good dozen other restrictions on free speech that are out there. You also need permits for large gatherings, permission to move en mass into various areas, occupancy limitations, so on and so forth for freedom of assembly.

In short: No right exists without some restriction on it, either legislative or de facto, not even gun rights.

iawai: Remove all Republicans: iawai: We don't need Free speech or rights of assembly now either. And those crazy Constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure - antiquated.

No, those are still necessary and relevant, even more so now. Guns aren't safe any longer. They are too easy to get. We need to change that.

Why? What ends are you hoping to achieve here?

If you take guns away from the citizenry, they become dependent on the Government's Monopoly on public defense and beholden to whoever is in charge of those weapons. And making guns illegal doesn't make them disappear. They'll still exist, but only in the hands of those who have already made the decision to live outside the law. That will be a happy ending for sure.

I am convinced that RAR is someones alt. Probably TGOT or Hang On Voltaire.

The right of individuals to bear arms is not guaranteed by the constitution. This right was meant to give states the ability to protect themselves against other states.

*Sigh* wrong again on so many levels. The "collectivist argument" has been shot down time and time again. Are you saying that the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc amendments of the constitution pertain to the rights of individuals, but the 2nd is a collective right that pertains only to the states? Quite the revisionist history you have there.

The constitution is an "all or nothing" proposition. By ignoring the 2nd, you allow other to ignore the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments.

Lets see what the state constitutions say, many were written at or around the time that the US constitution was written.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions (new window)

Hmm, seems like most affirm that keeping and bearing arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The Federalist papers also confirm this.

iawai: As long as citizens have equal protection under the law (including the right to free association), there is no issue for the Federal government to hear. Nothing is said about marriage or sexual deviancy in the Federal charter (the Constitution), so as long as an inalienable right is not being abridged the Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

Loving vs Virginia would like a word with you. So would the 9th amendment for that matter, and the good faith and credit clause.

Murkanen: iawai: We don't need Free speech or rights of assembly now either.

There are plenty of limitations on both of those rights as well, far more than there are limitations on gun ownership across the country as a whole. You can't slander or libel, incite riot, incite violence, incite panic in a crowd, and a good dozen other restrictions on free speech that are out there. You also need permits for large gatherings, permission to move en mass into various areas, occupancy limitations, so on and so forth for freedom of assembly.

In short: No right exists without some restriction on it, either legislative or de facto, not even gun rights.

No laws should exist to keep one person from exercising their rights. As long as your actions do no harm to me you can do what you want.

Nothing mean Anything anymore

The right of individuals to bear arms is not guaranteed by the constitution. This right was meant to give states the ability to protect themselves against other states. Ergo, this is a state issue.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people states to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people states to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?

The right of the people states to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?

No person state shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people states?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people states?

If states want to give their citizens the right to bear arms, they can pass a law or write it into their constitutions.

Almost all of the American states already have such language in their constitutions, with almost all of these explicitly stating individual self-defence as a primary reason.

iawai: As long as citizens have equal protection under the law (including the right to free association), there is no issue for the Federal government to hear. Nothing is said about marriage or sexual deviancy in the Federal charter (the Constitution), so as long as an inalienable right is not being abridged the Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

So, you simply disagree whether the right exists.

DamnYankees: iawai: As long as citizens have equal protection under the law (including the right to free association), there is no issue for the Federal government to hear. Nothing is said about marriage or sexual deviancy in the Federal charter (the Constitution), so as long as an inalienable right is not being abridged the Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

So, you simply disagree whether the right exists.

DY I think he has no issue with it.

globalwarmingpraiser: DamnYankees: iawai: As long as citizens have equal protection under the law (including the right to free association), there is no issue for the Federal government to hear. Nothing is said about marriage or sexual deviancy in the Federal charter (the Constitution), so as long as an inalienable right is not being abridged the Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

So, you simply disagree whether the right exists.

DY I think he has no issue with it.

Maybe. But the point I'm trying to make is that the term "activist judge" is used incredibly stupidly and hypocritically. A judge who merely believes a right exists and you disagree is not enough to make anyone acitivist.

Crosshair: *Sigh* wrong again on so many levels.

Actually, originally, given that the FEDERAL constitution only limited actions of the FEDERAL government, he is correct that the federal constitution in no way guaranteed the right to bear arms, as the states were still free to do whatever the heck they wanted.

kronicfeld: Crosshair: *Sigh* wrong again on so many levels.

Actually, originally, given that the FEDERAL constitution only limited actions of the FEDERAL government, he is correct that the federal constitution in no way guaranteed the right to bear arms, as the states were still free to do whatever the heck they wanted.

Yup. If you go merely by original intent, the states don't have to do anything at all that's in the constitution except for the stuff in Article 1, section 10 (IIRC).

globalwarmingpraiser: As long as your actions do no harm to me you can do what you want.

You have no idea how much I agree with this position, unfortunately it is far to liberal a notion for a good 99.9% of the world to be considered attainable in my lifetime.

Murkanen: You might want to read the "secure in their persons" part of the 4th amendment, as well as the entirety of the 9th amendment.

/There's also that pesky 14th amendment that you might want to take a gander at

The 4th amendment arguments are really stretching it by slightly changing the meanings of the words, the 9th amendment arguments are stretching it as well. If we use the 14th amendment, we still come to the question, "is a fetus a person". Getting down to the biological aspect of it, until the fetus is viable and able to survive outside the mothers body, it cannot be considered a separate person, since it cannot live on its own as a separate person, so it is a part of the mothers body.

The best you could argue with that IMHO, is a ban on third trimester abortion.

Almost all of the American states already have such language in their constitutions, with almost all of these explicitly stating individual self-defence as a primary reason.


Because this was an issue left up to the states. Look on the googles if you don't believe me.

DamnYankees: globalwarmingpraiser: DamnYankees: iawai: As long as citizens have equal protection under the law (including the right to free association), there is no issue for the Federal government to hear. Nothing is said about marriage or sexual deviancy in the Federal charter (the Constitution), so as long as an inalienable right is not being abridged the Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

So, you simply disagree whether the right exists.

DY I think he has no issue with it.

Maybe. But the point I'm trying to make is that the term "activist judge" is used incredibly stupidly and hypocritically. A judge who merely believes a right exists and you disagree is not enough to make anyone acitivist.

I would consider the Kansas Judge that imposed new school system, complete with new taxes, on Kansas City activist. But when it comes to rights I always err on the side of the individual.

Actually, originally, given that the FEDERAL constitution only limited actions of the FEDERAL government, she he is correct that the federal constitution in no way guaranteed the right to bear arms, as the states were still free to do whatever the heck they wanted.

Thats better

Murkanen: globalwarmingpraiser: As long as your actions do no harm to me you can do what you want.

You have no idea how much I agree with this position, unfortunately it is far to liberal a notion for a good 99.9% of the world to be considered attainable in my lifetime.

I hope and pray it doesn't require another revolution to save this country I love.

globalwarmingpraiser: I would consider the Kansas Judge that imposed new school system, complete with new taxes, on Kansas City activist. But when it comes to rights I always err on the side of the individual.

I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically, but what you describe sounds about right. I would say an activist judge is one who not only rules on the legality of a situation, but gets involved in how the problem has to be fixed.

If Scalia's such a great Supreme Court judge, then why doesn't he know anything about the Tenth Amendment?

I keep hoping someone will walk up to Scalia's limo when it's stuck in D.C. traffic, stick a Saturday Night Special through the window, and blow that idiot away.

Remove all Republicans: globalwarmingpraiser: I am convinced that RAR is someones alt. Probably TGOT or Hang On Voltaire.

You may be convinced but you are wrong. I am my own man.

globalwarmingpraiser: No laws should exist to keep one person from exercising their rights. As long as your actions do no harm to me you can do what you want.

Your gun harms me by giving me great fear and cause for concern. If you held a nuclear weapon, the fear of accidental discharge would justify removing that. Why should a gun be any different?

So, fear harms you.
Do scary movies harm you? We can ban them.
Do curse words make you apprehensize? Ban them
Do french Fries tempt you into clogging your arteries? Ban Them