In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
something really bothers me about this....
callktulu
Member Posts: 3,451 ✭✭✭
Can Supreme Court judges be impeached? Or face some other form of similar form of discipline if they prove to be blatantly ignoring their oath? Based on the recent gun ban ruling, this judge's dissenting comment really bothers me:
quote:Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
It seems to me that he is choosing the view the Constitution like a buffet: picking and choosing where and when it can be applied. And as I think we can all agree here, that is NEVER the case with our most treasured document. Unless I am misinterpreting what he's saying, it seems that he bases Constitutionality on where you live (urban vs. rural) and what that particular area's crime rate is.
To me, he is blatantly picking and choosing when and how the Constitution should be applied, rather than using it as intended: a rule for all. So.....by his logic search & seizure may be OK in rural, low-crime areas, but not in urban high-crime areas. Freedom of assembly is guarded on a farm, but not in city limits. Women can vote in suburbs whose first letter begins with "T," but everywhere else it's prohibited.
Where does it end? Why is this guy allowed to continue to interpret the Constitution as "Choose Your Own Adventure" game?[?]
quote:Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
It seems to me that he is choosing the view the Constitution like a buffet: picking and choosing where and when it can be applied. And as I think we can all agree here, that is NEVER the case with our most treasured document. Unless I am misinterpreting what he's saying, it seems that he bases Constitutionality on where you live (urban vs. rural) and what that particular area's crime rate is.
To me, he is blatantly picking and choosing when and how the Constitution should be applied, rather than using it as intended: a rule for all. So.....by his logic search & seizure may be OK in rural, low-crime areas, but not in urban high-crime areas. Freedom of assembly is guarded on a farm, but not in city limits. Women can vote in suburbs whose first letter begins with "T," but everywhere else it's prohibited.
Where does it end? Why is this guy allowed to continue to interpret the Constitution as "Choose Your Own Adventure" game?[?]
Comments
Of course, that is just what the framers intended to do! They wanted the people to be armed so they could overthrow a tyrannical government just as they had just done to the Brits. Every one of the dissenting opinions sounds like it was written by an idiot.
OleDuk[:(!][:(!]
you can park a volkswagen in the room and he can still say he doesn't see anything.
he's referring to the case at hand.
you can park a volkswagen in the room and he can still say he doesn't see anything.
Well, in all fairness, VW's do suck, so I'll give him that.