But the problem with this approach is, ultimately, after appeals are exhausted, all it takes is for the Supreme Court to say...nothing. Just refuse to hear a case without comment, and what's done is done...[More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at a "legal" confirmation of what some of us have been saying for years.
I hope no one thinks power is ever ceded because the usurpers think it's the Constitutionally proper and moral thing to do...
Share the link?
How can we ever expect anything different coming from the communists in black robes??? They do not share our vision of freedom and liberty. Their vision is based on darkness and death.
ReplyDeleteWhy even bother to go to the polls when our vote is subject to be deemed null and void by the thugs in black???
I hear that buying stocks in the hemp market is the current hot pick. So many assholes and so little hemp!!!
Doug
Newark, Ohio
Too bad industrial hemp isn't 'allowed' or there would be massive orders for rope.
ReplyDeleteOpinions, be they of a court or a person, often simply support an ideology held by the giver of the opinion. It is often not difficult to detect mere support for an ideology from honest assessment of a certain case because an opinion that merely supports an ideology usually will not square logically with a simple reading of the source documents.
ReplyDeleteTo me Heller could have been simply resolved by simply stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm anywhere that person has a right to be. (I recall that Heller was purposely narrowed by the plaintiff to possession in the home but I believe, perhaps wrongly, that the Justices could have easily broadened the scope of their ruling.) But given the "intellectual" nature of Supreme Court justices, and lower court justices wanting to be Supreme Court Justices, they certainly could not have done that since it would deny them the opportunity to impress the rest of us mortals with overwhelming evidence of their cleverness with the English legal lexicon.
Was it not Justice Scalia who fore-ordained the outcome of this case by addressing "reasonable" regulation of the right that shall not be infringed? Perhaps another appeal to the Supreme Court may give Justice Scalia a second at bat where he may at last redeem himself of his last foray into intellectual prose and just keep it simple, stupid.
Judge Urbina is obviously defending an ideology since at no place in the United States Constitution does it say anything about reasonable regulation of the right that shall not be infringed. In fact, all I could find about regulating the right to keep and bear arms is that it shall not be infringed.
I said all that to say just this: The Constitution is ours, not theirs, and it means what WE say it means!
It ain't over yet...
ReplyDeleteLawyers' offices and preachers' offices have one thing in common. The walls are lined with books.
ReplyDeleteIn those offices there is only one book (document) that contains the law, all the others are merely opinion.
The road to hell, in either case, is paved with good intentions and reasonable regulations. Lawyers and judges do not study the Constitution, they study others' interpretations and opinions.
We The people will never be trusted with the law because We The People do not have letters following our names. We The People will never understand the law, nor will We The People ever be protected by the law, because the people with letters following their names keep twisting the word of the law to mean whatever they find to be convenient at the time.
So it was. So it is. So it will be.
Killing a man will not convert him to one's way of thinking, but at least, one does not have to listen to his crap any longer. Will it come to this?
[W-III]