The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

Sure. I mean... the vast majority of decisions that SCOTUS makes have no partisan undertones either way.

You are not reading my posts. I already said that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are established law.

I have proven to posters who self-identify as legal experts and Constitutional professors that the Heller decission was not based on the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-truth-about-the-second-amendment.539563/

I already explained why on that post. And you haven't answered the question. I will await your answer.

No!!!

 

You lose according to the 10th amendment. Show me where government can restrict ANY citizen of ANY weapon without a criminal action. YOu have the 4th, 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments stopping the constitutional violation of registration, carrying under almost any circumstance (except for imminent criminal actions) and ownership of any weapon. The government was never given the power over personal weapons, nor was the intent to give the government any such powers.

 

You mean no BI-Partisan undertones? I mean if you think that the decisions mostly coincide with Republican Party principles, that's partisan isn't it?

And given this, you would say that ALL of those in the majority opinion in Obergefell are NOT activist justices, right?

Your question is based on the premise that I NEEDED to look up what an "activist judge" is. I DIDN'T!

Even so, you DID say that the Supreme Court was legislating in Roe v Wade didn't you?

 

Who cares? That has nothing to do with my point.

Sorry, but I have too many posts from people with better reading comprehension to spend my time explaining to you what the point of this debate is. I can only tell you I have repeated it several times throughout the thread, so you can go back and read it, if you want. Do a search for "the 2nd Amendment does not support a right to own guns"

 

I find it telling when a person repeatedly dpends 3 times as much effort explaining why they will not answer a question as it would take to just give a straight answer.

BTW, I have asked several times for someone with your position on gun rightd to tell us about why President Washington did not round up or even drastically restrict gun use after the Revolutionary War.

Care to comment on this?

Care to comment on why all 45 POTUSs think you don't have a clue about 2A?

 

I absolutely do not mean "bi-partisan"

Wrong! Any conclusion would be a Non sequitur. You still have not grasped what "activist judges" means.

I know you didn't. The question is why?

Quote! Once again: if you can't quote me saying that, why ask? If you can quote me, why ask?

 

It sure is telling. It tells you that I will not bite the strawman argument.

You would probably need to find a discussion in which that would be relevant. This is not it.

I would not care to do that unless you can find any -relevance in this discussion.

You owe 45 quotes/ But only if you wish to be taken seriously. I doubt you will come up with even one, given that you have yet to even understand my argument. It does require the capacity to make a moderate intellectual effort. Maybe I expect to much from you.

 

NO partisan understones? So then there was BI-partisan undertones? That makes no sense.

So then you consider it possible that one or more judges in Obergefell was an activist justice?

I didn't look it up because I didn't NEED to look it up!

Sure:

I mean its a pretty long way of saying "YES" but it is a YES isn't it?

 

Sorry, but you are wrong about the Heller decision. I guess when I passed the Ohio Bar Exam in 2015, I didn't understand law. Further, when amateurs try and state stuff that they have no comprehension or understand therein, and then try to pass it off as knowledge, gives me much humor.

Heller didn't have to be made. I have yet to be shown that the government has any rights over weapons, regardless of the 2nd Amendment. The 10th amendment is the one who stops the federal government if applied as the constitution is written, to make a single gun law. the second amendment just defined a second place that made sure the government should not be doing what it is doing. Would you like me to post the text for you?

 

Yes, the court was legislating murder, making it legal. They literally rewrote the constitution, which they do not have the legal power to do.

 

.

 

I don't know what that means

Do you consider it possible that one or more judges in Obegefell have ever beat their wives (or husbands)?

You didn't need to look it up only if you are not interested in having an informed discussion. Otherwise you did. If the former is true, please let me know now so I can stop wasting my time.

 

Well... congratulations for passing your exam. But if that's supposed to impress me.... I've been in debates with "experts" too many times for that.

In any case, what you didn't understand has nothing to do with a "bar exam" and everything to do with linguistics.

But you didn't know that because you never bothered to read the argument you are claiming is "wrong". Is that how it works in Ohio? Do they just dismiss arguments without actually reading them?

 

Well what did you mean by "no partisan undertones?"

Sure, but I mean whether the judges in Obergefell were being activist justices IN that case and that it was their activism that decided the case. I can only assume that you don't believe that was the case.

I mean its a pretty long way of saying "YES" but it is a YES isn't it?

 

No bias... I think.

How would I know that? I have no idea...

You should remove the word "assume" from your vocabulary.

Why are you asking? You just quoted it. If I remember correctly you even answered "fair enough" the first time.

 

Okay, but what about the thousands of resolutions that coincided with Republican party principles? How were they unbiased?

So you don't know whether or not justices were being activists in Obergefell, but you are 100% certain that justices were being activists in one or more of the other cases that we've been talking about? That seems a little convenient to me!

So then you can't be altogether happy with what happened with Roe v Wade, because you don't think that the Supreme Court should be legislating.

 

Correlation is not causation.

Convenient to you?

Ok. I'm glad it helped you..

 

It is always VERY telling when your answers get brief and you start leaving out responses! You obviously know that you've been caught out on the fact that Roe v Wade was legislating! I realise how conflicting it must be for you, given that you agree with what Roe v Wade did, but at the same time you don't like that it was legislating! I wonder if you meant to reveal this conflict in public!

 

So after all of that, it turns out that Republican 'activist' justices are not such a problem after all, considering that the decisions were unbiased! And still no final words on the legislating nature of Roe v Wade? I'm not surprised that you haven't responded!

 

I just stopped trying to make an effort to understand what the hell you are talking about, because I have come to the conclusion that you yourself don't know . If you explain it, fine. If you don''t... you don't. The expression "legislating nature" being one example.

 

So after all of that, it turns out that Republican 'activist' justices are not such a problem after all, considering that the decisions were unbiased!

As in, the fact that, as you have said, the Supreme Court was legislating in Roe v Wade. This is correct isn't it?

 

You still don't know what I'm talking about?

 

I just want to make sure I have this straight. None of the 4 witnesses Ford named including her best friend knows anything about her claims, she didn't know how she got there, she didn't know how she got home even though she was driven both ways, and for this to be true she abandoned her best friend at a potential rape party. Thats about the farthest thing from a substantiated claim as you can get and you would be a bit remiss to claim you would be satisfied with a guilty finding against yourself in the same circumstances.

Kavanaugh called these Democratic senate pigs out for what they really are. They outed Ford without her knowledge or consent for nothing more than a political jab to get Kavanaugh to walk away. He didn't, he was confirmed, and they would up looking just like they are. Lying snakes. I expected nothing less from Kavanaugh for putting this country and his family through a farce.

AS far as your A and B scenarios, Kavanaugh demanded a hearings immediately and these Democratic Senate quacks drug this on for 10 more days trying to keep this confirmation from happening until after the Mid terms. Once Kavanaugh got the chance for option B he took it and called them out for who they really are. Cheats and liars. They got caught and Kavanaugh got confirmed.

 

driven both ways?

 

Fords exact words in her testimony

“I would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that is shown in your picture,” Ford said. “And the country club is about a 20-minute drive from my parents’ home.

“A 20-minute drive. And of course I’ve marked as the crow flies,” Mitchell said. “Would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party, or home from the party?”

“Correct,” Ford replied.

“Has anyone come forward to say to you, remember, I was the one that drove you home?” Mitchell asked.

“No,” Ford said.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ford-senate-testimony-brett-kavanaugh-hearing