6 ms·

This term alone the "conservative majority opinions" have been downright contradictory on "relevant legal issues". Women now have a right to defend their life w

by drewrv 4y ago

This term alone the "conservative majority opinions" have been downright contradictory on "relevant legal issues". Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare. It's clear that they are simply using "originalism" to cherry pick what falls in line with their personal opinions.

xyzzyz 4y ago
> Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare. You are just illustrating my exact point. Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”, whereas nothing of this sort is clearly and explicitly said about abortion rights. Here, again, conservatives focus on what the law actually says, and liberals focus on their preferred policy, and if their preferred policy is not to be clearly and explicitly found in the law, it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra”.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”, Only in the context of a well-regulated militia, at least until Scalia amended the Constitution in Heller.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution An individual right to keep and bear arms was newly discovered in 2008, in a 5-4 decision. It took 220 years for a single vote majority to find evidence of it. > it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra” That's a funny way of describing the Ninth Amendment.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    The pushback on the "individual right" thing is always so funny to me, because if you really believe that 2A was about membership in a "militia" then it's meaning is that the government can't disarm itself. It's truly hilarious, given the context of when it was written.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      That's not the definition of militia at the time the Constitution was written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) > During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. Even today, there are organized, state-run militia (the National Guard) and unorganized, independent militia.
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        I think you're deliberately missing my point, which is that to take your position literally you have to think 2A was about making a rule to keep only a state-run organization armed right after they had just fought (and won) a war of independence using, among others, individuals and "unorganized, independent militia" and the weapons they personally owned. It truly strains credulity to think the Founders sat down and wrote with that intent. Plus, you can actually just go back and read what they wrote about their reasoning back then if you want. It's all in the public record. That it took the Court this long to actually have to say it is more a function of the deliberate gaslighting that's taken place in the 20th century to convince people this right never existed. Even in Dred Scott Chief Justice Taney noted that if African slaves were given citizenship they'd be allowed to "keep and carry arms wherever they want".
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I never thought about what the inverse intent would have to be. It is so obvious.
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        I think most people that actually follow the "it was about membership in the militia" interpretation really do believe that only the government should be allowed to have weapons. That's fine, and there's an argument to be made there, but I'd appreciate it if they just made that argument rather than rewriting history.
- iostream24 4y ago
  The entire second amendment here: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Notice the first phrase. Absolutely nothing here says “every Joe wacko can have military grade arms in case they want to overthrow the government “ Tell me it’s originalism to interpret the words above in any way other than what it reads as: a description of state militias.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >Tell me it’s originalism to interpret the words above in any way other than what it reads as: a description of state militias Regulated means armed with military grade guns, and is not a description of legal oversight (eg regulations) "A well regulated Militia" literally meant a military armed citizenry. The intent was to have no paid or professional military and the military was to consist of citizens bringing their arms from home to fight with. 2nd amendment can be losslessly paraphrased: "because it is important to form well armed mobs, every Joe wacko can have military grade arms"
    - iostream24 4y ago
      No way! It literally says a well regulated militia. Fact. Spare me your creative interpretation masquerading as originalism
mlindner 4y ago
The supreme court didn't take away the ability to get abortions. It just moved jurisdiction to states instead of at the federal level because there is absolutely no mention of abortion in the Constitution, when there absolute is mention of guns in the Constitution. The majority of states in the US will have the same abortion laws they have always had.
- nswest23 4y ago
  Define 'gun.' If there was a handheld contraption with a trigger that could fire a small nuclear projectile that could destroy an entire city would the right to have one be protected by the second amendment just because it fits the general definition of a gun?
  - mlindner 4y ago
    I'm not going to play semantics games.
    - nswest23 4y ago
      It's not a game. The founders could not have foreseen the types of weapons that we quite arbitrarily consider to be 'guns' as described in the constitution, therefore if anyone is playing games it is the people who call themselves 'originalists' when they pretend that it is that philosophy that informs their judicial opinions.
InTheArena 4y ago
This is a (deliberate) misreading. The Supreme Court stated that you could not apply handgun laws in a way that privileged one group over another. Historically, if you were black, no gun. White and knew the governor? Weapon up. The supreme court's policies have been pretty straightforward if you read the constitution. The legislature has the responsibility to write the law. Not the supreme court (which is un-elected), not bureaucrats (who are un-elected) - without explicit law to make it possible. The fact that everyone is screaming that an unelected bunch of mostly white folks are returning power to congress and telling them - no, be democratic - reveals a awful lot about the current state of the United States.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > The Supreme Court stated that you could not apply handgun laws in a way that privileged one group over another. Claiming this in the same post you accuse someone else of "deliberate misreading" is a bit funny. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen goes substantially further than that.

by drewrv 4y ago

xyzzyz 4y ago

> Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare. You are just illustrating my exact point. Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”, whereas nothing of this sort is clearly and explicitly said about abortion rights. Here, again, conservatives focus on what the law actually says, and liberals focus on their preferred policy, and if their preferred policy is not to be clearly and explicitly found in the law, it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra”.

joshuamorton 4y ago
> Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”, Only in the context of a well-regulated militia, at least until Scalia amended the Constitution in Heller.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution An individual right to keep and bear arms was newly discovered in 2008, in a 5-4 decision. It took 220 years for a single vote majority to find evidence of it. > it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra” That's a funny way of describing the Ninth Amendment.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  The pushback on the "individual right" thing is always so funny to me, because if you really believe that 2A was about membership in a "militia" then it's meaning is that the government can't disarm itself. It's truly hilarious, given the context of when it was written.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    That's not the definition of militia at the time the Constitution was written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) > During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. Even today, there are organized, state-run militia (the National Guard) and unorganized, independent militia.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      I think you're deliberately missing my point, which is that to take your position literally you have to think 2A was about making a rule to keep only a state-run organization armed right after they had just fought (and won) a war of independence using, among others, individuals and "unorganized, independent militia" and the weapons they personally owned. It truly strains credulity to think the Founders sat down and wrote with that intent. Plus, you can actually just go back and read what they wrote about their reasoning back then if you want. It's all in the public record. That it took the Court this long to actually have to say it is more a function of the deliberate gaslighting that's taken place in the 20th century to convince people this right never existed. Even in Dred Scott Chief Justice Taney noted that if African slaves were given citizenship they'd be allowed to "keep and carry arms wherever they want".
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I never thought about what the inverse intent would have to be. It is so obvious.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      I think most people that actually follow the "it was about membership in the militia" interpretation really do believe that only the government should be allowed to have weapons. That's fine, and there's an argument to be made there, but I'd appreciate it if they just made that argument rather than rewriting history.
iostream24 4y ago
The entire second amendment here: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Notice the first phrase. Absolutely nothing here says “every Joe wacko can have military grade arms in case they want to overthrow the government “ Tell me it’s originalism to interpret the words above in any way other than what it reads as: a description of state militias.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >Tell me it’s originalism to interpret the words above in any way other than what it reads as: a description of state militias Regulated means armed with military grade guns, and is not a description of legal oversight (eg regulations) "A well regulated Militia" literally meant a military armed citizenry. The intent was to have no paid or professional military and the military was to consist of citizens bringing their arms from home to fight with. 2nd amendment can be losslessly paraphrased: "because it is important to form well armed mobs, every Joe wacko can have military grade arms"
  - iostream24 4y ago
    No way! It literally says a well regulated militia. Fact. Spare me your creative interpretation masquerading as originalism

mlindner 4y ago

The supreme court didn't take away the ability to get abortions. It just moved jurisdiction to states instead of at the federal level because there is absolutely no mention of abortion in the Constitution, when there absolute is mention of guns in the Constitution. The majority of states in the US will have the same abortion laws they have always had.

nswest23 4y ago
Define 'gun.' If there was a handheld contraption with a trigger that could fire a small nuclear projectile that could destroy an entire city would the right to have one be protected by the second amendment just because it fits the general definition of a gun?
- mlindner 4y ago
  I'm not going to play semantics games.
  - nswest23 4y ago
    It's not a game. The founders could not have foreseen the types of weapons that we quite arbitrarily consider to be 'guns' as described in the constitution, therefore if anyone is playing games it is the people who call themselves 'originalists' when they pretend that it is that philosophy that informs their judicial opinions.

InTheArena 4y ago

This is a (deliberate) misreading. The Supreme Court stated that you could not apply handgun laws in a way that privileged one group over another. Historically, if you were black, no gun. White and knew the governor? Weapon up. The supreme court's policies have been pretty straightforward if you read the constitution. The legislature has the responsibility to write the law. Not the supreme court (which is un-elected), not bureaucrats (who are un-elected) - without explicit law to make it possible. The fact that everyone is screaming that an unelected bunch of mostly white folks are returning power to congress and telling them - no, be democratic - reveals a awful lot about the current state of the United States.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> The Supreme Court stated that you could not apply handgun laws in a way that privileged one group over another. Claiming this in the same post you accuse someone else of "deliberate misreading" is a bit funny. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen goes substantially further than that.