Supreme court cases

Guns don't kill threads; Ratz kill threads!
User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Hermit » Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:34 pm

laklak wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:40 pm
Hermit wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:20 am

From List of countries by intentional homicide rate: USA - 6.3/100,000 (2020) Australia - 0.9/100,000 (2020). There is something absurd about thinking that carrying guns protects one from "serious risk of lethal violence" in a country where the chance of being murdered is 9 times higher than in a country where carrying guns for the purpose of self protection is prohibited. I am ever so glad I live in Australia rather than the United States of America.
Once again, our murder rate, when you take out cities and gang violence, is no worse than almost anyplace else.
When you take out cities and gang violence anyplace else, yours remains worse.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Tero » Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:05 pm

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

JPMorgan Chase will cover travel benefits for workers seeking abortion starting July 1

House Republicans eye 15-week abortion ban after SCOTUS ruling
From CNN's Melanie Zanona

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey – one of the GOP’s leading anti-abortion voices who said the issue is what inspired him to run for office – said he’s planning to lower his proposed 20-week abortion ban down to 15 weeks in light of the Supreme Court eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion.

What about the states? Don't they have the right now?

No: Supreme court gives states full power in all things to do with everyday life. Except: guns, abortion. Then they decide.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by laklak » Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:09 pm

Hermit wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:34 pm
laklak wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:40 pm
Hermit wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:20 am

From List of countries by intentional homicide rate: USA - 6.3/100,000 (2020) Australia - 0.9/100,000 (2020). There is something absurd about thinking that carrying guns protects one from "serious risk of lethal violence" in a country where the chance of being murdered is 9 times higher than in a country where carrying guns for the purpose of self protection is prohibited. I am ever so glad I live in Australia rather than the United States of America.
Once again, our murder rate, when you take out cities and gang violence, is no worse than almost anyplace else.
When you take out cities and gang violence anyplace else, yours remains worse.
I......don't.....give.....a.......shit.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6937
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by macdoc » Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:33 pm

US is a police state on the verge of becoming a theocratic police state with one of the most corrupt political system in the G20 ....perhaps the most corrupt
...sad state of affairs.
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Hermit » Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:02 am

laklak wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:09 pm
Hermit wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:34 pm
laklak wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:40 pm
Hermit wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:20 am

From List of countries by intentional homicide rate: USA - 6.3/100,000 (2020) Australia - 0.9/100,000 (2020). There is something absurd about thinking that carrying guns protects one from "serious risk of lethal violence" in a country where the chance of being murdered is 9 times higher than in a country where carrying guns for the purpose of self protection is prohibited. I am ever so glad I live in Australia rather than the United States of America.
Once again, our murder rate, when you take out cities and gang violence, is no worse than almost anyplace else.
When you take out cities and gang violence anyplace else, yours remains worse.
I......don't.....give.....a.......shit.
Of course. Google renders your reply as
laklak wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:09 pm
I......am.....a.......libertarian
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by laklak » Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:45 am

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I agree with macdoc, we're headed for a police state, but whether it's a theocracy or a wokeocracy is up for grabs. I see no real difference from a personal perspective. Libertarianism seems the only logical response. Those preppers up in the mountains don't look so crazy now.

I saw a good post on reddit - The Supreme Court's philosophy can be summed up as life begins at conception and ends in a mass shooting.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Hermit » Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:37 am

laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:45 am
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Yes, not giving a shit about the US having a multiple murder rate compared to civilised countries strikes me as a bad thing. Check out the West European nations.

Belgium                    1.7
Denmark                   1.7
Finland                     1.6
England and Wales    1.2
France                      1.2
Sweden                     1.2
Scotland                    1.1
Austria                      0.9
Portugal                    0.9
Germany                   0.8
Greece                      0.8
Ireland                      0.7
Netherlands               0.6
Norway                      0.6
Spain                         0.6
Italy                          0.5
Switzerland               0.5
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by laklak » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:20 am

Again, it's not my circus, not my monkeys. There is literally nothing I can do about it other than vote, and arm myself. So that's what I do. Changing my FB profile pic, marching in the streets, unfriending people online or in real life because they have a different political philosophy than me, means fuck all and is nothing more than useless virtue signaling. Homey don't play that, because homey don't give a fuck what other people think of him.

It is difficult to do an actual safety analysis, because it is very, very difficult to get the data you actually need. For example, my previous hometown, Sarasota, ranks as one of the most dangerous small cities in the United States. It scores a "10", meaning is is only safer than 10% of comparable cities. However, if you dig deeper, over 90% of the crime occurs in ONE area, Newtown, which is 100% poor black and riddled with gang and drug violence. In our old neighborhood we had, in two years, a single break-in and zero violent crime. Newtown, despite being only a few miles away, had no impact on my life. My sister's neighborhood, which was about a half mile away and a lot more expensive, had a couple of break ins and a few bicycles stolen, and zero violent crime. They're even closer to Newtown then we were.

Using national statistics to prove almost anything about the U.S. is a fruitless exercise.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Hermit » Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:59 pm

laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:20 am
...my previous hometown, Sarasota, ranks as one of the most dangerous small cities in the United States. It scores a "10", meaning is is only safer than 10% of comparable cities. However, if you dig deeper, over 90% of the crime occurs in ONE area, Newtown, which is 100% poor black and riddled with gang and drug violence. In our old neighborhood we had, in two years, a single break-in and zero violent crime. Newtown, despite being only a few miles away, had no impact on my life. My sister's neighborhood, which was about a half mile away and a lot more expensive, had a couple of break ins and a few bicycles stolen, and zero violent crime. They're even closer to Newtown then we were.
Demographic differentials concerning murder rates apply everywhere. In Australia you'd be much more likely to be murdered if you were a drug dealer, a member of a bikie gang or what in the US is termed a person of colour too, and I am sure this also applies in the countries I listed in my previous post.

Your line of argument is as invalid this time around as it was when you raised it a few hours ago. Comparing apples with apples, the homicide rate in the US is nine times greater than in the countries I listed above, which is ironic, considering the right to bear arms in general and concealed carry in particular is supposed to protect you from being killed in the US, while no such right exists in the countries with several times lower murder rates.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by laklak » Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:16 pm

I have almost no of being killed in the U.S., so the statistic is bullshit. It only applies to a small minority of the population and cannot be used to generalize about life in the U.S. You aren't comparing apples to apples, because none of the countries you listed are anything like the U.S. THey don't have the diversity, size, or 50 different legal systems. We're unique, and whether that's good or bad is unclear.

I don't think our gun laws help anything. If we were starting over maybe we could restrict them, but I don't live in "what if" land, I live in reality, and the reality is 400 million guns in the U.S. and absolutely zero chance of changing that.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:54 pm

Only, AR-15s are not necessary for anything. Getting rid of then can only bring deaths, such as school shootings down. "Two killed in high school incident" will run the headlines.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by laklak » Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:00 pm

Lots of stuff isn't "necessary". Meat. Football. Air conditioning. Leather car interiors. Coca Cola. Pizza. Actually, most everything is unnecessary.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:18 pm

Squirrels, you would not survive on fish all winter with only a sling shot for a weapon. But a slingshot...
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by Hermit » Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:06 am

laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:16 pm
I have almost no of being killed in the U.S., so the statistic is bullshit. It only applies to a small minority of the population and cannot be used to generalize about life in the U.S. You aren't comparing apples to apples, because none of the countries you listed are anything like the U.S. THey don't have the diversity, size, or 50 different legal systems. We're unique, and whether that's good or bad is unclear.

I don't think our gun laws help anything. If we were starting over maybe we could restrict them, but I don't live in "what if" land, I live in reality, and the reality is 400 million guns in the U.S. and absolutely zero chance of changing that.
You're singing the famous, sardonic refrain from The Onion's songbook:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Image

119 mass shootings took place around the world between 1983 to 2013. 66% were in the U.S. The data are rather old. Given the increasing rate of mass shootings in the US during the intervening years I venture to say the scale has become even more askew.

This imbalance does not merely apply to mass shootings. Last year 1046 children under the age of 12 have been accidentally or intentionally shot, 308 of them fatally. Adjusting for the population difference Australia's figures should have been 80 and 23 respectively. We have come nowhere near those numbers.

Blaming the murder rate on particular demographics does not work for two reasons. One is that Australia is struggling with problematic strata too, such as crime gangs, bikies, drug dealers and what you might call "people of colour" too. I would be much more likely to be murdered if I lived in Redfern than in Vaucluse, for instance. If I lived in the Northern Territory my chances of being murdered would be 4.6 times higher than if I lived in Victoria, and much higher again if I were an Aborigine living in the Northern Territory. The other reason is that our problematic strata of society has problems laying their hands on concealable guns or assault style semi-automatic rifles because there are none laying around to be stolen or obtainable from traders who don't care whom they are selling them to. Murders still happen here, of course, but it is not as easy to kill someone with a fry pan, cricket bat or even a knife.

You are also underestimating the number of homicides committed by normally law-abiding US citizens because they happen to have a concealed firearm (with requisite permit where applicable) on them. The case of the two drivers who pulled up in a parking lot and ended their road rage by shooting each other dead is probably an extreme case, but I would not be surprised if it turned out that a few thousand murders a year simply would not happen if no gun were available at the time.

I do agree with you that 400 million guns floating around in a country with a population of 340 million presents a monstrously huge problem for those who wish to do something about reducing the US's murder rate, but throwing one's hands up in the air and exclaiming "there's no way" reminds me of a saying, the irony of which is not lost on me in this context: "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." – Wayne Gretzky
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Supreme court cases

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:12 pm

An interesting refutation on historical grounds of Justice Thomas's cherry-picked 'originalism.' Also notes a glaring discrepancy between the historical eras upon which two different decisions are supposedly based. The minor casuistry of claiming to be guided by long-standing law when overturning a law that has stood for over 100 years (New York state concealed carry law) is not even mentioned.

'The Supreme Court’s Faux "Originalism"'
“Originalism has been the reigning constitutional theory of legal conservatives since the election of Ronald Reagan,” a contributor to the National Review wrote recently, with glowing approval. The theory, which views jurisprudence as frozen in time, flatly rejects the idea of the Constitution as a a living and evolving document and instead demands that we interpret its provisions exactly as the framers intended.

This week, what was once a fringe intellectual concept, confined to conservative legal circles, achieved its ultimate ascendance. In a decision that purports to rely on deep historic knowledge of the founding generation’s views on gun control, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court knocked down a New York State law limiting the concealed carry of firearms. Drafted by Justice Clarence Thomas, the decision applies a strict originalist frame to conclude that “[o]nly if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.’”

Thomas’ decision, endorsed by his five Republican-appointed colleagues, builds on the court’s earlier, originalist decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which located in the Second Amendment an individual constitutional right to own firearms.

There’s just one problem. Both decisions get the history wrong.

...

The distinction between collective rights and obligations to bear arms, and individual rights to gun ownership, was widely understood. In Virginia, Thomas Jefferson attempted to include a specific individual right to bear arms in the state constitution, to complement the existing provision safeguarding militias. His effort failed. Similar efforts failed in other states.

One might argue that early state constitutions were distinct from the federal Constitution approved by convention in 1787. But these early state documents deeply informed the federal effort in Philadelphia. The discussion around their adoption lends an understanding of how Americans thought about rights in the late 18th century.

But to appreciate how the founding generation thought about firearm regulation, we can look at what they did, and not just what they said. James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, twice introduced state legislation in Virginia that would impose penalties on any individual who “bear[s] a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty.”

You read that right. The author of the Second Amendment drafted statewide legislation that was effectively a forerunner to the New York state law that the Supreme Court just struck down. The bill, which was really aimed at regulating deer hunting, did not pass. But it clearly demonstrated that Madison viewed individual gun ownership as well within the state’s regulatory prerogative.

...

States in the Early Republic commonly regulated the concealed carry of guns. In Ohio, “whoever shall carry a weapon or weapons, concealed on or about his person, such as a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be deemed guilty.”

They also commonly regulated gunpowder, as well, limiting the amount of ammunition an individual could keep and store at one time. Why? Because it was dangerous. Whole towns could catch fire and burn to the ground. The logic of originalism would suggest that states therefore have a right to regulate magazine sizes.

...

[B]y its own, shaky logic, there is simply no compelling, originalist argument for a constitutional right to individual gun ownership. Framers of the Bill of Rights firmly held that the right to own guns existed solely in concert with the obligation to fulfill militia service and preserve a well-regulated peace.

That doesn’t mean that states cannot allow citizens to own and carry guns, openly or concealed. If the state of Texas wants to go that route, its legislature can (and has) passed positive laws to that effect. But there is no historical basis for a constitutional standard that denies New York or New Jersey the ability to restrict individual gun ownership.

...

The court also relied extensively on history to prop up its decision overturning women’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, arguing that “the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868,” when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, criminalized abortion. This is too clever by half. By the majority’s originalist standard, we should be guided by the prevailing laws and traditions in place when the Constitution was adopted. In the late 18th century, when Congress drafted the Bill of Rights, common law held that abortion was not criminal until the moment of “quickening” — the moment when a woman first felt a fetus move or kick. She alone could attest to the facts. In English and colonial courts, if a woman testified that her fetus had not been quick, she was held harmless of charges. Well into the 19th century, ads for patent abortion medicines ran prominently in newspapers and journals. States began outlawing abortion only in the mid and late 19th century, largely in response to efforts by (male) doctors to de-legitimize midwives and other paraprofessionals. By originalist logic, those laws were unconstitutional and should not be a basis for later interpretation. My point is not that abortion is constitutionally protected because it was a common law right in 1787. Rather, the court’s majority is cherry-picking its history, grasping for any historical example that props up the end it hopes to achieve.

Curiously, in the space of 24 hours, the court’s majority moved the goal posts — 1790s for guns, 1850s or so, for abortion — in determining what historical standard should inform the boundaries of constitutional exegesis.

The broader problem is that originalism essentially requires judges and their law clerks to earn a Ph.D. in American (and probably, as well, early modern English) history. A legal theory constructed on historical foundations doesn’t work if jurists aren’t well-versed in history.

Otherwise, originalism becomes an unserious game of cherry-picking examples — a political outcome in search of a supporting argument.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests