As the Lauren Boebert "SugarDaddyMeet.com-Gate" begins to expand...and it is going to expand a lot

And again: that is prohibition of arms, which you are for and proud of in one breath and denying in the next.
Shall we call you Peter then?

 

They are not activist judges; they are merely judges. Learning about our legal system is always worthwhile.

 

I cannot discern your point.

 

No, it is not prohibition of arms. That is just a propaganda rant.

 

People pointing out she prostituted herself, took money without reporting it properly, that her husband flashed his **** at minors, etc., are all fair attacks on a person who holds themselves out as a paragon of moral virtue as Boebert has.

Further: Her policies are ****ing retarded so attacking them as such is likewise fair game.

 

The brady bill LITERALLY prohibits various types of arms ffs.
His state bill did likewise. EXPLICITLY.

That is prohibition of arms.

 

If you write that up means down, you're an activist judge abusing the trust placed in you, your position of authority, undermining respect for the Court and ultimately its only power.

The Constitution means what it says, if you want to change it see Art V.

 

Unless the attacks on her are scurrilous fabrications.

 

Some should probably be prohibited. That's a detail to be worked out. Fully auto weapons are already prohibited, for example.

 

Per CJ Hughes, the judges decide what the Constitution says.

 

Her husband flashing his **** is documented. Taking money without proper reporting is documented.
The prostitution claims, with photographs, either prove the claim itself as true, or are actionable malicious defamation against a public figure which she could remedy at law. So far she's sent a bare letter, and done nothing else though the filing of this pleading practically writes itself and she has more than enough scratch to pay attorneys and the GOP has a vested interest in hooking her up with some literal firebreathers.
The fact she hasn't filed is telling to me, as an attorney.

 

No, the rules of the English language and what's written on the paper determine what the constitution says. That's how the rules of judicial review function.
Again: You can't say up is really down, that's the only reasoning by which decisions end up overturned.

 

So now you'll admit you're for prohibition of arms after denying it thrice?
We really should call you Peter.

Its not a detail to be worked out. Arms are arms, I have the right to keep and bear them which shall not be infringed.

 

I doubt you are an attorney.

 

Your argument is with CJ Hughes and, ultimately, with CJ Marshall.

 

Its a good thing your doubt has no effect on my license to practise law then eh?

 

Reasonable controls are not prohibitions; that's just propaganda.

 

No, my argument is with you who thinks judges can simply make up whatever they'd like and aren't bound by the actual text.

 

If you prohibit an object from being possessed, either explicitly or by type, that is a prohibition. By definition.

 

Your posts suggest a lack of familiarity with the legal system.

 

Because I say that judges are bound by the text of the Constitution?

Sure sparky.

 

Nope. We prohibit twelve year olds from driving; that does not mean we prohibit driving.

 

Because you don't understand judicial review.

 

And yet they are the ones who decide what is the actual text.

 

It does mean there is a prohibition on 12 year olds driving, on pain of imprisonment or death.
Or were you unaware you'd been seized under the 4th amendment when pulled over?