The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Moliere]

What is so sacred about original intent? When we have the luxury of common sense, why should we give two shits about the original intent of a handful of privileged old white men who lived two and a half centuries ago?

Words should have meaning. Otherwise, why have laws at all? Let’s all just live by common sense.

[falafel]

Words should have meaning. Otherwise, why have laws at all? Let’s all just live by common sense.

Plus, "common sense" varies wildly. I mean, all due respect, but common sense says a man with a lawful permit to own a gun should be able to carry that gun concealed on his person out in public.

[Uncle Ted]

At a certain point you can't just wave away original intent and rely on reinterpretation to save you. The gun ruling today just reaffirms the original intent. And rulings like this will continue to happen when it comes to the second amendment. Instead of revising history, the campaign should really be focused on revising the second amendment. Because short of that losses will just keep piling up for the gun control movement.

Someone needs to clue Merrick Garland in that he is not a justice on the supreme court so he can take his dissent, stick it where the sun don't shine, and STFU.

Embedded Tweet

Is he really advocating nullification?

Yeah, the Dems should be trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and coming for everyone's guns. That would be fun to watch.

[The_Tick]

Someone needs to clue Merrick Garland in that he is not a justice on the supreme court so he can take his dissent, stick it where the sun don't shine, and STFU.

Embedded Tweet

Is he really advocating nullification?

Yeah, the Dems should be trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and coming for everyone's guns. That would be fun to watch.

It's funny...because what Garland is advocating for is the current law in California. And it is lame.

[Uncle Ted]

It's funny...because what Garland is advocating for is the current law in California. And it is lame.

About them California gun control laws...

Supreme Court puts almost all of California's gun control laws in danger

In its first significant Second Amendment case in over a decade, the United States Supreme Court struck down New York's rules for obtaining a permit to carry a firearm in public.

The ruling will have significant impacts in California beyond only concealed carry laws, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told SFGATE.

"It's fair to say this ruling will have its biggest effects in states like California with more restrictive gun laws," said Winkler, who is the author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America." "This is the beginning of a period where we’ll see a wide variety of California gun laws called into question, if not struck down entirely."
[...]

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/arti...s-17260774.php

pzf7zxgVPkID.jpeg

[Uncle Ted]

Gun control laws are racist!

The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas:

A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

So if you are for gun control laws then you are racist and just want to keep the man with better tans than you down!

[fusnik]

Conservative Judge Luttig and George Will:

https://mobile.twitter.com/judgelutt...C9senMpOAqAAAA

[fusnik]

Now Roe is officially gone.

Crazy 6 political years.

I can’t imagine what conservatives would be doing if the shoe was on the other foot and Obama stole a seat and Hillary packed a court and multiple landmark decisions came down in favor for the liberals and against a majority of Americans after Hillary attempted a coup.

Fortunately the democrats are adults and unfortunately I’m sure they’ll message next week that Biden isn’t socialist enough and that gas prices are high because OPEC doesn’t have nary one LBGTQ member representative.

[fusnik]

They won’t go after gay marriage!!!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_St...C4ucWJtOAqAAAA

[Flystripper]

Politics continues to be incredibly disheartening. Its really hard for me to engage in discourse. It feels pretty hopeless TBH.

[MartyFunkhouser]

They won’t go after gay marriage!!!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_St...C4ucWJtOAqAAAA

Thomas' concurrence if fucking frightening. I cannot believe someone like that is on the court.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Which state is going to be the first to test this court by outlawing gay marriage? When will it happen?

I don't think Utah will do it. I don't think the LDS church will want to be the pioneer on this one and will wait it out for someone else to do it. They will join them in their efforts, but one be the one driving it.

I think it will be one of the crazy bible belt states and I do expect it to happen.

No state is really going to test the birth control issue.

I'm 50/50 on if there will be a state that will outlaw gay sex to test the court on that one. I think they probably know that even this court won't go that far.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Maybe I should put this question in an abortion thread, but I'm sincerely curious about the rape/incest/life of the mother exceptions to abortion bans that all, or nearly all, states have. I don't disagree with those at all, but don't they rest on the premise that the mother's life is more important/valuable than the fetus's? If one rejects that premise and believes a fetus is a human life equally worthy of protection, then why have any exceptions at all? Why should one human (assuming we're assigning full human status to the fetus) have priority over another?

[Moliere]

Now Roe is officially gone.

Crazy 6 political years.

I can’t imagine what conservatives would be doing if the shoe was on the other foot and Obama stole a seat and Hillary packed a court and multiple landmark decisions came down in favor for the liberals and against a majority of Americans after Hillary attempted a coup.

Fortunately the democrats are adults and unfortunately I’m sure they’ll message next week that Biden isn’t socialist enough and that gas prices are high because OPEC doesn’t have nary one LBGTQ member representative.

I know what if’s aren’t really constructive, but what if Hillary doesn’t put a stranglehold on the democratic nomination and loses to Trump. What if RBG is a little more humble and retired while Obama is in office. What if the democrats passed abortion laws while they had a supermajority instead of wasting their time on passing Obamacare.

Democrats are adults but they suck at politics.

[Moliere]

Maybe I should put this question in an abortion thread, but I'm sincerely curious about the rape/incest/life of the mother exceptions to abortion bans that all, or nearly all, states have. I don't disagree with those at all, but don't they rest on the premise that the mother's life is more important/valuable than the fetus's? If one rejects that premise and believes a fetus is a human life equally worthy of protection, then why have any exceptions at all? Why should one human (assuming we're assigning full human status to the fetus) have priority over another?

Because a woman doesn’t chose to be raped.