Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

101
Salon.
Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her "expansive view" is utter BS
That might be a bit dizzying, but given that Barrett was an English literature major and is a textualist, her imperative to avoid misinterpretation here would seem like a piece of cake.

To me (and to many others, including a number of Supreme Court justices), the obvious sense here is "In that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The latter thing, the right, is contingent on the former thing, the well-regulated militia and the need for such.

The original Congress that passed the Bill of Rights might have chosen to turn it around, as in "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State" (and it was in that order in an original draft by Madison), but they chose to emphasize the "well-regulated Militia being necessary" clause, which in effect makes it a conditional clause  — if this is true, then this other thing follows.

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

102
DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:19 am Salon.
Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her "expansive view" is utter BS
That might be a bit dizzying, but given that Barrett was an English literature major and is a textualist, her imperative to avoid misinterpretation here would seem like a piece of cake.

To me (and to many others, including a number of Supreme Court justices), the obvious sense here is "In that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The latter thing, the right, is contingent on the former thing, the well-regulated militia and the need for such.

The original Congress that passed the Bill of Rights might have chosen to turn it around, as in "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State" (and it was in that order in an original draft by Madison), but they chose to emphasize the "well-regulated Militia being necessary" clause, which in effect makes it a conditional clause  — if this is true, then this other thing follows.
I find that view to be very odd since Sweetpotato Hitler was elected. Don't any democrats think a militia might be necessary? Say Trump loses and refuses to leave, as one example often fretted over, where the right to keep and bear might be important...

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

103
featureless wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:59 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:19 am Salon.
Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her "expansive view" is utter BS
That might be a bit dizzying, but given that Barrett was an English literature major and is a textualist, her imperative to avoid misinterpretation here would seem like a piece of cake.

To me (and to many others, including a number of Supreme Court justices), the obvious sense here is "In that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The latter thing, the right, is contingent on the former thing, the well-regulated militia and the need for such.

The original Congress that passed the Bill of Rights might have chosen to turn it around, as in "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State" (and it was in that order in an original draft by Madison), but they chose to emphasize the "well-regulated Militia being necessary" clause, which in effect makes it a conditional clause  — if this is true, then this other thing follows.
I find that view to be very odd since Sweetpotato Hitler was elected. Don't any democrats think a militia might be necessary? Say Trump loses and refuses to leave, as one example often fretted over, where the right to keep and bear might be important...
Or a pandemic effectively wipes out our national defense and a foreign military threat occurs....

Likely, who knows. But, without the ability to raise a militia to replace those forces the end result is predictable.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

105
featureless wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:59 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:19 am Salon.
Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her "expansive view" is utter BS
That might be a bit dizzying, but given that Barrett was an English literature major and is a textualist, her imperative to avoid misinterpretation here would seem like a piece of cake.

To me (and to many others, including a number of Supreme Court justices), the obvious sense here is "In that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The latter thing, the right, is contingent on the former thing, the well-regulated militia and the need for such.

The original Congress that passed the Bill of Rights might have chosen to turn it around, as in "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State" (and it was in that order in an original draft by Madison), but they chose to emphasize the "well-regulated Militia being necessary" clause, which in effect makes it a conditional clause  — if this is true, then this other thing follows.
I find that view to be very odd since Sweetpotato Hitler was elected. Don't any democrats think a militia might be necessary? Say Trump loses and refuses to leave, as one example often fretted over, where the right to keep and bear might be important...
There is a noticeable push on the left to equate "militia" with "white supremacists" and to make people believe participation in a militia is illegal. Of course, the moment a militia were to become active doing _anything_ related to the public, it would most likely be in violation of law. I'm sure that would include any public activity in support of any position during a constitutional crisis. There is a post or two elsewhere about it.

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

107
featureless wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:02 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:28 pm There is a noticeable push on the left to equate "militia" with "white supremacists" and to make people believe participation in a militia is illegal.
It parallels the push that gun owners are all crazy or latent murderers, at best. :thumbsdown:
Yup, generalizing about the other side is what keeps our two parties at each others throats. Paint your opponent as less than human and then they become just like the Nazis.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

109
In strange move Clarence Thomas – not Chief Justice Roberts – to administer oath to Amy Coney Barrett

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not officiate the swearing in of soon-to-be confirmed Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett Monday night. Instead, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife is a close Trump ally, will do the honors.

The event is set to take place between 8 and 9 PM Monday night, according the White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and media reports.

It’s unclear why the Chief Justice will not be administering the oath, but Justice Thomas and especially his wife, far right activist and lobbyist Ginni Thomas (photo) are close to the Trump white House.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/in-st ... y-barrett/

Maybe John Robert’s is getting a conscience. :sarcasm:
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

111
It's done. Only Collins voted no.

Time to expand the Court. I'm 65 years old and in that time, EVERY Chief Justice has been Republican and the majority of the justices have been Republican appointees.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron