Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

So many executive orders, so much twitter. What to do? Well, discuss it here for one...

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 12257
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

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

#101 Post by DispositionMatrix » 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.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7786
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

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

#102 Post by featureless » 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...

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 17133
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

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

#103 Post by sikacz » Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:36 pm

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

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 20423
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

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

#104 Post by highdesert » Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:18 pm

Salon and the writer have their own agendas. Biden said he'll appoint a bi-partisan commission to look at the federal judiciary. That may put some fear in justices so who knows what will happen, Roberts is officially the head of the federal judiciary and I'll bet he's very concerned.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 12257
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

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

#105 Post by DispositionMatrix » Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:28 pm

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.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7786
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

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

#106 Post by featureless » 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:

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 20423
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

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

#107 Post by highdesert » Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:15 pm

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

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7786
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

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

#108 Post by featureless » Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:21 pm

highdesert wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:15 pm Nazis.
Why didn't Hitler drink tequila?



It made him mean.

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 20511
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

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

#109 Post by TrueTexan » Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:00 pm

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

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 24407
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

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

#110 Post by CDFingers » Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:19 pm

Fuck Schumer if he allows a quorum.

CDFingers
ImageImage.
Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14466
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

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

#111 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:01 pm

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ylatkit and 8 guests