3 ms·

Heller was a 5:4 decision made against text, history, and precedent by radical judicial activists. The decision doesn’t stand up to historical or logical scruti

Heller was a 5:4 decision made against text, history, and precedent by radical judicial activists. The decision doesn’t stand up to historical or logical scrutiny, and it was accompanied by a very forceful dissent. Justice Scalia’s claim to being guided by “originalism” and “textualism” was shown to be a hypocritical farce by this and similar rulings.

robomartin 7y ago
Ah, OK, so any 5-4 SCOTUS decision is not valid then? How do we decide laws then? Can I ignore the ones I don’t like? And how about McDonald in 2010. See, that’s the problem with gun haters, their solution is to mess with the rights of everyone. Let’s go! Let’s take that approach to everything. No more cars, knives, hammers, medicine, planes, trains, rocks, pressure cookers, chains, pieces of wood, ropes, etc. Let’s ban everything that could ever be used to harm anyone. For that matter, let’s castrate all men to prevent rape too. At some point reason needs to prevail. The problem has nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with the brain. This is so irrefutable it’s silly.
- vidarh 7y ago
  You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law vs. whether or not their decision is factually correct. A 5-4 decision is binding, but no decision is automatically factually correct just because SCOTUS made it, whether it is unanimous or 5-4.
  - robomartin 7y ago
    > You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law Well, that's what they do! How else do we decide then? Do I get to drive 150 miles per hour because I don't think the speed limit laws are factually correct? After all, I am quite capable, I have spent thousands of dollars learning and practicing race car driving and if I am on an absolutely empty road... You can't pick and choose what laws you should obey. We are talking about rights here. The Bill of Rights for that matter. This isn't about where you should cross the street. This is silly. Look, the laws are what they are. If you don't like them, go put your case in front of the SCOTUS and argue your point.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      The comment above was not talking about what the laws are, but about fact. That the laws are what they are does not change facts. If SCOTUS rules tomorrow that the sun orbits the earth, that does not make it fact. You're doing the exact same thing again of conflating an argument about fact with an argument about law.

robomartin 7y ago

Ah, OK, so any 5-4 SCOTUS decision is not valid then? How do we decide laws then? Can I ignore the ones I don’t like? And how about McDonald in 2010. See, that’s the problem with gun haters, their solution is to mess with the rights of everyone. Let’s go! Let’s take that approach to everything. No more cars, knives, hammers, medicine, planes, trains, rocks, pressure cookers, chains, pieces of wood, ropes, etc. Let’s ban everything that could ever be used to harm anyone. For that matter, let’s castrate all men to prevent rape too. At some point reason needs to prevail. The problem has nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with the brain. This is so irrefutable it’s silly.

vidarh 7y ago
You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law vs. whether or not their decision is factually correct. A 5-4 decision is binding, but no decision is automatically factually correct just because SCOTUS made it, whether it is unanimous or 5-4.
- robomartin 7y ago
  > You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law Well, that's what they do! How else do we decide then? Do I get to drive 150 miles per hour because I don't think the speed limit laws are factually correct? After all, I am quite capable, I have spent thousands of dollars learning and practicing race car driving and if I am on an absolutely empty road... You can't pick and choose what laws you should obey. We are talking about rights here. The Bill of Rights for that matter. This isn't about where you should cross the street. This is silly. Look, the laws are what they are. If you don't like them, go put your case in front of the SCOTUS and argue your point.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    The comment above was not talking about what the laws are, but about fact. That the laws are what they are does not change facts. If SCOTUS rules tomorrow that the sun orbits the earth, that does not make it fact. You're doing the exact same thing again of conflating an argument about fact with an argument about law.