|
|
Post by beth on Jun 19, 2016 17:10:00 GMT -5
Men an tol, this is all about terrorists and suspected terrorists. Are you sure you want them to have individual rights? I don't.
I am assuming you mean you don't want SCOTUS to set a precedent, but surely there's a way to word it (legalese) that would make it very specific to the situation.
In regard to Antonin Scalia, he may have been a fine fellow as a father, grandfather and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's friend, but I have some negative impressions that have to do with the way he did his job. I'm not interested in a discussion about that at this time .. just think his priorities were skewed.
I have no such impressions about the other justices (different neg. about Clarence Thomas) so hope you're not suggesting they not worthy of their positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 19, 2016 18:03:22 GMT -5
Men an tol, this is all about terrorists and suspected terrorists. Are you sure you want them to have individual rights? I don't. I am assuming you mean you don't want SCOTUS to set a president, but surely there's a way to word it (legalese) that would make it very specific to the situation. In regard to Antonin Scalia, he may have been a fine fellow as a father, grandfather and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's friend, but I have some negative impressions that have to do with the way he did his job. I'm not interested in a discussion about that at this time .. just think his priorities were skewed. I have no such impressions about the other justices (different neg. about Clarence Thomas) so hope you're not suggesting they not worthy of their positions. No, I have never suggested terrorists (even those suspected of being terrorists) to have Individual Rights under our Constitution and the laws which are derived from it, that is, as long as they are not citizens of the United States. Once they are a citizen there is no way around their having Individual Rights. The Supreme Court has already (in Heller and McDonald) given the opinion that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an ‘Individual’ right of the citizen. As such, that right is protected from actions of the government as to not be infringed. That is very strong wording and very difficult to get around. Certainly, this ‘right’ does not apply to aliens and laws restricting guns should be able to be written, enacted, and pass Supreme Court scrutiny, with little problem as applied to such individuals. I have already written as to how citizens can be subject to gun ownership and use restriction. It entails as the very basic level that their citizenship must be minimized by a court and this can only be accomplished individually. It also requires that when such laws are created they must be based on fact and not unfounded emotions. For example, the often stated non-fact of these individuals easily and legally acquiring assault weapons. This is so untrue as to ruin any attempt at reasonable dialog since assault weapons (that is fully automatic weapons) have been illegal for the public to own since 1934, (82 years). Justice Scalia (I believe) was one of the finest legal minds on the court and was the leader of Constitutional interpretation referred to as Original Literal Word Meaning, that is defining word meaning as existed at the time of ratification. This is the common and fully vetted method of defining the meanings of agreements. Justice Thomas is an excellent heir to be the leader of the perspective of Justice Scalia. I am not aware of anything that negates or minimizes their legal perspectives. As to Justice Ginsburg, she has a fine mind and I suspect that is the basis for the friendship between her and Justice Scalia, however, her view of the Constitution is less than admiral. One time she was speaking (outside of the United States, I forget where) to a group of people looking into the possibility of forming a new Constitution in their country. There she told them not to use the Constitution of the United States as a guide, rather to use the Constitution of South Africa. She was also known to use from time to time, case law from outside of the United States to justify her opinions. I have found her less than credible in her support of the Constitution of the United States. It will be interesting to watch the Senate debate these bills tomorrow. I certainly plan to watch the process but I have little hope than they (the Senators) will rise above their petty bickering and party politicking to actually accomplish something worthwhile. I hope I will be proved wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 19, 2016 18:43:37 GMT -5
t will be interesting to watch the Senate debate these bills tomorrow. I certainly plan to watch the process but I have little hope than they (the Senators) will rise above their petty bickering and party politicking to actually accomplish something worthwhile. I hope I will be proved wrong. I hope so, too, Men. Will it be on C-Span? |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 19, 2016 19:47:49 GMT -5
t will be interesting to watch the Senate debate these bills tomorrow. I certainly plan to watch the process but I have little hope than they (the Senators) will rise above their petty bickering and party politicking to actually accomplish something worthwhile. I hope I will be proved wrong. I hope so, too, Men. Will it be on C-Span? The U.S. Senate is on C-SPAN 2 while it is in session, it will be on there from the senate being called to order and until adjournment. C-SPAN is for the U.S House of Representatives while it is in session. C-SPAN 3 can be any number of programs. It will not necessarily go fast. Likely each bill will have a floor leader for Pro side and one for the Con side and each will be assigned a specific amount of time that the leader will assign to other Senators. Going through all 4 bills could take several hours. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 20, 2016 2:15:08 GMT -5
"""To me Individual Rights are about as important as anything that is associated with government"", so very true Men...but how do you reconcile individual rights to buy guns...with the individual rights not to be randomly shot  ? the only way these opposing rights can live together...are stringent controls |
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 20, 2016 9:26:51 GMT -5
U.S. Supreme court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place gun control laws in New York and Connecticut that ban assault weapons like the one used in last week's massacre at an Orlando nightclub, rejecting a challenge brought by gun rights advocates. The justices declined to hear an appeal of an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld laws prohibiting semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines in the two northeastern states. The laws in New York and Connecticut, among the strictest in the nation, were enacted after a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle killed 20 young children and six educators in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. In total, seven states and the District of Columbia ban semi-automatic rifles. The New York and Connecticut laws were challenged by pro-gun groups including the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association as well as individual gun owners. The appeals court consolidated the two cases and upheld the law. The Connecticut challengers appealed to the Supreme Court while the New York ones did not. However, an individual gun owner, Douglas Kampfer, who had a parallel legal challenge to the New York law that also lost at the appeals court level asked the Supreme Court to hear his case. www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-state-assault-weapon-bans/ar-AAhkQ4r?ocid=spartandhpOne small step but it's still a defeat for the guns rights activists.
|
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 20, 2016 13:09:04 GMT -5
I hope so, too, Men. Will it be on C-Span? The U.S. Senate is on C-SPAN 2 while it is in session, it will be on there from the senate being called to order and until adjournment. C-SPAN is for the U.S House of Representatives while it is in session. C-SPAN 3 can be any number of programs. It will not necessarily go fast. Likely each bill will have a floor leader for Pro side and one for the Con side and each will be assigned a specific amount of time that the leader will assign to other Senators. Going through all 4 bills could take several hours. Following is an update on C-SPAN 2 Schedule relative to gun Control Proposals and Gun Amendment Procedural voting: Beginning sometime after 1:00 PM (all times EST): • TBD Washington Journal: Joshua Horwitz on Gun Control Proposals (I believe thatg the preceding may be a replay of an earlier interview about 45 Minutes): • TBD Washington Journal: Larry Pratt on Gun Legislation (This also is a prerecorded telecast and is about 45 Minutesz) • 3:00pm U.S. Senate Takes Up Gun Control Legislation (This is the floor debate and runs to the voting) • 5:30pm U.S. Senate - Gun Amendment Procedural Votes It is likely that all of this will be rebroadcast on any of the 3 C-SPAN Channels. |
|
Omega
?