We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....

The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machine guns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machine guns, and people buy machine guns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenting_opinions

 

Trump should pick Tiffany

 

Trump should not wait, but the Senate should after what they did to Obama

 

You can probably guess what they think about Obama. Justices quite often disappoint the President that chose them, C.J. Roberts?

 

@struth mentioned three in the previous post, but I'm unclear why you are asking at all. Do you believe that no blacks voted in this country until the Voting Rights Act?

 

1. Breyer dissent: I don't understand what machine guns have to do with contradicting the constitution. Heller wasn't about machine guns and Heller did nothing to overturn the National Firearms Act.

2. Stevens dissent: In colonial times, a "militia" was all able bodied males, not state militias.

 

I don't know if it "contradicts" (that's your terminology, not mine) the Constitution. I'm saying it's not based on an originalist view of the Constitution as written.

 

I am ALL in favor of broadening the breadth of experience outside the current parameters. That court is dominated by Harvard educated judges off the appellate circuits from the east coast. We could use a tax attorney, a small claims judge, a legislator, a county solicitor, an administrative law specialist, a family law attorney, and more judges from rural and western America. I don't even care if they are current with the bar association, or kept paying their dues for their law license. But a lot of what SCOTUS does has nothing to do with interpreting the constitution at all. A lot of if involves understanding statutory construction and statutory interpretation and those are skill sets that one learns in law school, and practice all through the four years you attend. Its not something you can get from a 'Statute reading for Idiots' book. Anybody who wants to sit on our highest court has to know the fundamentals and the skills they teach in law school.

 

I thought you were going to supply me some examples? Anywhoo..how was it not based on an originalist view?

 

We had this discussion many many times in the past. Scalia basically made up his own definition of the words in the 2nd A. Here's one example
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...naughs-victory.543237/page-13#post-1069793664

 

Your link simply went to a previous post of yours describing the dictionary definition of "arms." I didn't see any reference to some private personal reference you think Scalia "made up." If you have an argument, couldn't you simply state your argument?

 

Read again. What I write there is the meaning of "arms" at the time the Constitution was originally written, which is what originalists claim they do. Not a definition. Know the difference. "Meaning" and "definition" are not the same thing (sometimes, but not always)

Scalia made up a new definition of "arms" to justify his legislation. Therefore he is not an originalist. That's my point. He made up definitions of many other things.

In fact, Scalia made up a whole pseudo-linguistic "discourse" that has no basis on the original meaning of the 2nd A

If you want to get into this discussion you would need to first read Scalia's legislation on Heller. If you do, I'll be happy to point you to the posts on this matter I had already written. But I have proven many times that Scalia was not an "originalist" using this case. And this includes two discussions with attorneys. One of which claimed he/she had taught Constitutional Law.

And if he's not an "originalist" here, why should anybody assume he was one somewhere else?

 

Regarding lawyers on the Supreme Court. First principles apply.
Lawyers in Congress put them there.
Let's stop sending lawyers to Congress.

 

I don't know how you could write so much all the while avoiding stating your argument. As far as I can tell, Scalia said that the definition of "arms" was A ( a definition he made up) and really, the definition of arms was B.

If that is what you are getting at, that Scalia made up a definition of "arms" then what was his made up definition, and what was the real definition as understood at the time was?

 

So we should appoint people who know nothing about the law.....to interpret the law? Would you allow a plumber to do brain surgery too?

 

You didn't read the link?

His definition was "weapons" in general (see Heller decision for specifics). The original (as in "originalist") meaning at the time was what the link I sent demonstrates.

 

Dishonest people with no brains deserve representation too. How non-inclusive of you!

 

We need to stop putting people in SCOTUS who interpret the law, and start putting more who apply it as written.

What is this prejudice that right wingers have against plumbers? A plumber might not do brain surgery, but they can read and understand a law as written just as well as any attorney. Maybe better, because they live in the REAL world and not in an Ivory Tower.

 

I saw the link, and I saw definition, and I guess I didn't see what point you are making. Of course that was exactly what I asked you in my last comment. So let me try again. What was in the majority decision in Heller that you feel was in violation of the constitution?

 

I hold that they are overrepresented in this administration. That's why they voted for Trump. Because he's "one of them"

Honest people with brains need to gather for a Tea Party in Boston to demand "no taxation without representation!"

 

You're the only one saying it was a "violation" of the Constitution. I have no idea if it is or not. I just know (and have proven) that Scalia is not an originalist.

I think the problem is that you're having trouble concentrating on what I say. Rather than on what you wish I had said.

 

OK you still have not made your point.

Your claim: Scalia is not an originalist.

Your proof: ehh...OK what is it?

 

Okay. Should Supreme Court Hearings be more like American Idol or X-Factor in the world of non-attorney jurists?

I used to say I would like more non-judge appointees but apparently Obama listened and found the lowest hanging fruit, so be careful what you wish for.

 

No silly, people voted for Trump because they trust him and identify with him because he is truly fighting for them, their fortunes, their families and jobs. Unlike politicians from both parties that have sold us out to international globalist elites, Trump is actually following through and make our lives better.

 

Oh my God! Read the link I sent!!!

I could send you more but... what's the use? We both know where this is going. You're not going to read it. You're just going to act as if I hadn't sent it, right? And, in the end, you'll just say something like "you never proved that the Heller decision was a violation of the Constitution!". Which you have already been preparing for several posts.

Yeah... we've been through this before...