The Supremes

[Captainant 26,902]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As you will see with Garland, the House contempt citation will go nowhere.

"Who ya gonna call? The cops?"

[wildcat09 28,486]

37 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

But Congress can grill Executive officials all day long. I don’t understand why Judicial gets a free pass.

 

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Dick Durbin is chickenshit, basically.

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,554]

Bump stocks are back on the table boys. And just in time for the election.  Fatty and his ilk rejoice.  

[wildcat09 28,486]

If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like they want a bunch of Republican loons to buy bump stocks and carry out more mass shootings like Las Vegas.

['stache 21,520]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

American's disapproval of the Supreme Court is up to 61%, the highest level yet during the Biden administration:

Marquette Law School poll

 

I mean, five of them were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote, what did we expect?

[HenryJames 65,253]

21 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Bump stocks are back on the table boys. And just in time for the election.  Fatty and his ilk rejoice.  

It's not a machine gun unless it comes from the machine gun region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling assault rifle.

[yoladu 4,044]

22 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I mean, five of them were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote, what did we expect?

but GWBush won the majority in 2004 against Kerry.  Roberts appointed in in 2005, Alito in 2006.

I get what you are saying though.

[Stringer 1,420]

So, when are we just straight up allowed to own rocket launchers?

['stache 21,520]

3 minutes ago, yoladu said:

but GWBush won the majority in 2004 against Kerry.  Roberts appointed in in 2005, Alito in 2006.

I get what you are saying though.

You're right, I thought it was the other way around. Still shitty.

[Paper_jam 827]

I need want my own private complex of underground ICBM silos. For self defense. (The 2nd refers to Arms, not just guns.)

 

[BamaATL 16,009]

I got a bad feeling we are going to get a Friday afternoon news dump from the Supreme Court today on immunity.  

[yoladu 4,044]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

You're right, I thought it was the other way around. Still shitty.

Indeed. One wonders what the court would be like if Harriet Myers was on the bench and not Alito.

[fattyflattie 4,633]

52 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Bump stocks are back on the table boys. And just in time for the election.  Fatty and his ilk rejoice.  

Not really, they are stupid devices.   But this will help turbo fuck the brace laws, which were bullshit, so yeah necessary evil I guess. 

[Michael Knight 12,699]

1 hour ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Bump stocks are back on the table boys. And just in time for the election.  Fatty and his ilk rejoice.  

Biden can campaign against Trump on it since he enacted the ban

[wildcat09 28,486]

32 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I got a bad feeling we are going to get a Friday afternoon news dump from the Supreme Court today on immunity.  

They're holding that until the last day of the term. July 2nd would be my guess. 

[Js1 82,949]

35 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I got a bad feeling we are going to get a Friday afternoon news dump from the Supreme Court today on immunity.  

Do they ever release opinions in the afternoon?  I thought they were done in the morning. 

[BamaATL 16,009]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Do they ever release opinions in the afternoon?  I thought they were done in the morning. 

Not sure, but they also haven't ever sided with a mob boss as president, so there's that.  

[Chuckie Finster 22,285]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

American's disapproval of the Supreme Court is up to 61%, the highest level yet during the Biden administration:

Marquette Law School poll

 

What the fuck was happening in late 2021/early 2022?

Pretty wild how you can immediately pinpoint when Roe was overturned.

Edited June 14 by Chuckie Finster

[jimmyjazz 45,162]

3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

What the fuck was happening in late 2021/early 2022?

I assume sentiment cools until more shit hits the fan, which is clearly what spiked disapproval once Roe v Wade was clearly going to be overturned.

[DixonHur 10,837]

1 hour ago, Paper_jam said:

I need want my own private complex of underground ICBM silos. For self defense. (The 2nd refers to Arms, not just guns.)

 

This is what's always confused me about the 2A nut jobs.  They claim the 2nd Amendment was enacted so the citizenry could defend themselves against a tyrannical government.  I disagree based on the 1st sentence in the amendment, but for grins let's follow it to the logical conclusion.

How is an AR, for example, with or without a bump stock going to protect you against the government's jets, tanks, bombs, etc.?  If the 2nd Amendment was really designed for the "people" to protect themselves from the government, shouldn't "we the people" be able to own any arms the government has?

[Brisketexan 103,515]

This is what's always confused me about the 2A nut jobs.  They claim the 2nd Amendment was enacted so the citizenry could defend themselves against a tyrannical government.  I disagree based on the 1st sentence in the amendment, but for grins let's follow it to the logical conclusion.
How is an AR, for example, with or without a bump stock going to protect you against the government's jets, tanks, bombs, etc.?  If the 2nd Amendment was really designed for the "people" to protect themselves from the government, shouldn't "we the people" be able to own any arms the government has?

If you apply Bruen as reasoned by the court…we shouldn’t be restricted in having such arms, as all.
“In 1790, was there any law restricting the ability of an individual from owning an F-15 with the latest avionics and a full bomb load? No? Well then, we can’t restrict that ability today.”
Bruen is the dumbest, most indefensible, tortured reasoning decision by the SCOTUS since Dred Scott. It’s just so fucking stupid, it’s incredible.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,511]

Did people own the ICBMs of the day: could an ordinary citizen have his own 80 cannon ship?

[Poester 109]

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This is what's always confused me about the 2A nut jobs.  They claim the 2nd Amendment was enacted so the citizenry could defend themselves against a tyrannical government.  I disagree based on the 1st sentence in the amendment, but for grins let's follow it to the logical conclusion.

How is an AR, for example, with or without a bump stock going to protect you against the government's jets, tanks, bombs, etc.?  If the 2nd Amendment was really designed for the "people" to protect themselves from the government, shouldn't "we the people" be able to own any arms the government has?

We the people is really what you’d need these guns for imo. The inevitable rationing would mean those with the guns make the rules. Imagine TP gate times a thousand. This coming from a guy that’s never owned an AR. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,511]

5 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Did people own the ICBMs of the day: could an ordinary citizen have his own 80 cannon ship?

just googled it, not expecting to come up with anything useful.  turns out WaPo answers it in discussing something else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/bidens-false-claim-that-2nd-amendment-bans-cannon-ownership/

key point: the constitution authorizes grants of letters of marque and reprisal.  those are given to ordinary citizens.  implicit in there is that there is someone out already outfitted to carry out high seas piracy.

[SmokeyTheBear 5,554]

26 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This is what's always confused me about the 2A nut jobs.  They claim the 2nd Amendment was enacted so the citizenry could defend themselves against a tyrannical government.  I disagree based on the 1st sentence in the amendment, but for grins let's follow it to the logical conclusion.

How is an AR, for example, with or without a bump stock going to protect you against the government's jets, tanks, bombs, etc.?  If the 2nd Amendment was really designed for the "people" to protect themselves from the government, shouldn't "we the people" be able to own any arms the government has?

You mean you don't have a Patriot battery in your front yard for when Uncle Sam shows up with a Reaper drone? 

[DixonHur 10,837]

1 minute ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

You mean you don't have a Patriot battery in your front yard for when Uncle Sam shows up with a Reaper drone? 

I wanted to support Israel, so I opted for the Iron Dome to cover my property.  

[YGIFS 19,445]

Fucking amateur hour in here.  I defend my home/family with a large moat around the entirety of my property.  And the moat is filled with battery-powered sharks.  good luck getting through.

[RPM 26,090]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t understand why Judicial gets a free pass.

Because they ain't running for reelection.

[DixonHur 10,837]

7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Fucking amateur hour in here.  I defend my home/family with a large moat around the entirety of my property.  And the moat is filled with battery-powered sharks.  good luck getting through.

Are your sharks equipped with lasers?  Or did you cheap out.

Edited June 14 by DixonHur

[Dnaguy 11,565]

23 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Fucking amateur hour in here.  I defend my home/family with a large moat around the entirety of my property.  And the moat is filled with battery-powered sharks.  good luck getting through.

 

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Are your sharks equipped with lasers?  Or did you cheap out.

[SmokeyTheBear 5,554]

Oh, the US has Predators? Well I have Predators too. 

Edited June 14 by SmokeyTheBear

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,959]

The second amendment isn't even mentioned in any of the opinions or the dissent. This is about whether or not the ATF went to far in interpreting federal law with specific language to include bumpstocks when they spent over a decade saying they weren't machine guns (an opinion pretty much everybody agreed with, including Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein). It was nearly universally agreed upon that it would require legislation to ban bumpstocks until Trump came along and issued an executive order to the ATF saying do it anyways. 

[Bozo_Casanova 25,822]

On 6/11/2024 at 9:43 AM, Js1 said:

Double their salaries? Dark money groups can match that and exceed it 

Not nearly enough. We should pay the president 5-10mm/yr, senators and SC judges around 5, and reps around 3.  Would make a huge positive impact immediately. 
 

It’s the same basic problem with most city councils- who would do that job for what it pays? We get better than we deserve, I think.

Edited June 14 by Bozo_Casanova

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,511]

we shouldn't completely abandon the idea of civic duty.

[South Austin 51,564]

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

we shouldn't completely abandon the idea of civic duty.

Not completely, but it’s mostly dead.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,511]

which means! it's partly alive.

 

Edited June 14 by BehoId, The Underminer!

[wildcat09 28,486]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not nearly enough. We should pay the president 5-10mm/yr, senators and SC judges around 5, and reps around 3.  Would make a huge positive impact immediately. 
 

It’s the same basic problem with most city councils- who would do that job for what it pays? We get better than we deserve, I think.

Esto. And a part of the problem few people think about is how many people are effectively crowded out from public service jobs because they literally can't afford to take a job that pays that little, even if they're not interested in getting rich. Most people who could be good candidates for public office enter the workforce with substantial student loans and even if they don't want to get rich they at least want to be able to buy a home and provide for their family. That's not easy to do even on a congressional representative's salary for someone who had to take out loans to get through school and also has a mortgage and an auto loan to pay. 

[scottsins 1,926]

If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like they want a bunch of Republican loons to buy bump stocks and carry out more mass shootings like Las Vegas.

FWIW, Obama’s ATF issued an interpretation of whether or not bump stocks met the statutory requirements to be classified as an automatic weapon, and thus illegal under the current gun laws. They, correctly, IMO, ruled that they did not.

And…because we suck as a nation, the legislative branch sat on their asses and never came close to actually passing a law banning bump stock use.

Trump’s ATF actually just said “fuck it. Those things aren’t legal.”, even though the statute was never changed.

This is another case of Congress not doing what they need to, followed by a “solution” that isn’t tenable under the Constitution. Kinda like DACA.

[Sawbonz 26,808]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The legislative branch is half controlled by members of a cult. 

We no longer agree on the basic tenet that corruption is bad, or that breaking the law is bad. It’s only bad if the cult leaders deems it bad. There is no longer a shared reality. Things will only get worse until cult leader is dead 

I believe the party in the majority controls the subcommittees which means they should be able to call anyone on the carpet they want to. Is that not correct?

[wildcat09 28,486]

10 minutes ago, scottsins said:

FWIW, Obama’s ATF issued an interpretation of whether or not bump stocks met the statutory requirements to be classified as an automatic weapon, and thus illegal under the current gun laws. They, correctly, IMO, ruled that they did not.

And…because we suck as a nation, the legislative branch sat on their asses and never came close to actually passing a law banning bump stock use.

Trump’s ATF actually just said “fuck it. Those things aren’t legal.”, even though the statute was never changed.

This is another case of Congress not doing what they need to, followed by a “solution” that isn’t tenable under the Constitution. Kinda like DACA.

Just because Obama's ATF interpreted the law to mean they couldn't ban it doesn't mean that their interpretation was correct. And even if you ultimately agree with Thomas's reading, Sotomayor's dissent is hardly an unreasonable interpretation of the statutory language and is more in line with the statute's intent. 

[wildcat09 28,486]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I believe the party in the majority controls the subcommittees which means they should be able to call anyone on the carpet they want to. Is that not correct?

They can subpoena anyone they want to so long as they have a valid legislative purpose, which is typically interpreted very broadly. Given their oversight responsibilities, the Senate judiciary committee could definitely subpoena justices. Those would likely be ignored, in which case a referral could be made to DOJ to prosecute any justice that ignored a subpoena for contempt of Congress. Nobody knows how that would ultimately play out, given the justices' roles at the top of the judicial branch. We'd have a "Constitutional crisis" and that's why Dick Durbin is too chickenshit to do it.  This all ignores, of course, that we've had multiple ongoing Constitutional crises basically since Scalia died.

[Carl Spackler 3,456]

48 minutes ago, scottsins said:

FWIW, Obama’s ATF issued an interpretation of whether or not bump stocks met the statutory requirements to be classified as an automatic weapon, and thus illegal under the current gun laws. They, correctly, IMO, ruled that they did not.

And…because we suck as a nation, the legislative branch sat on their asses and never came close to actually passing a law banning bump stock use.

Trump’s ATF actually just said “fuck it. Those things aren’t legal.”, even though the statute was never changed.

This is another case of Congress not doing what they need to, followed by a “solution” that isn’t tenable under the Constitution. Kinda like DACA.

Yeah, this is basically where I'm at.  I'm pointing my finger at Congress on the bump stock issue rather than at the Supremes.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,959]

38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Just because Obama's ATF interpreted the law to mean they couldn't ban it doesn't mean that their interpretation was correct. And even if you ultimately agree with Thomas's reading, Sotomayor's dissent is hardly an unreasonable interpretation of the statutory language and is more in line with the statute's intent. 

I read it. Clearly, somebody told her a BAR can fire eight rounds per second with a single pull of the trigger, and she took that to mean that it shoots eight round bursts. She then contrasts it with a Thompson submachine gun which can empty an entire magazine with one pull of the trigger. This helped form part of the backstop for her argument. Except the the eight rounds per second thing is the rate of fire. It is a select fire machine gun that functions the same as the gun she immediately contrasts it with. Nobody on her team actually bothered to learn about the technical details, despite basing their entire argument on technical details. The entire thing is riddled with errors. 

[Bozo_Casanova 25,822]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

Do they ever release opinions in the afternoon?  I thought they were done in the morning. 

Hold on to your butts

3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

How is an AR, for example, with or without a bump stock going to protect you against the government's jets, tanks, bombs, etc.? 

Serious answer- Guerilla warfare. Even by the 18thC it was well understood that citizen militia could not hope to match regulars in terms of training and equipment. But the 2nd Amendment was not drafted to facilitate rebellion either way. It was drafted to enable citizens to keep and bear arms as part of local militia service. Those were not understood to be same thing in 1791.
 

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

we shouldn't completely abandon the idea of civic duty.

Paying a wage we can easily afford commensurate with the scope of duties and responsibilities of the position is hardly  abandoning the idea of civic duty.

Edited June 14 by Bozo_Casanova

[wildcat09 28,486]

8 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I read it. Clearly, somebody told her a BAR can fire eight rounds per second with a single pull of the trigger, and she took that to mean that it shoots eight round bursts. She then contrasts it with a Thompson submachine gun which can empty an entire magazine with one pull of the trigger. This helped form part of the backstop for her argument. Except the the eight rounds per second thing is the rate of fire. It is a select fire machine gun that functions the same as the gun she immediately contrasts it with. Nobody on her team actually bothered to learn about the technical details, despite basing their entire argument on technical details. The entire thing is riddled with errors. 

The relevant statutory language is: "[t]he term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include...any part designed and intended...for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun..." 

You can read this the way Thomas does, as requiring one depression of the trigger to fire more than one shot to qualify, or you can read this the way the dissent does, reading "function" as the human operation of the trigger.  Both readings are reasonable. However, given the additional language also capturing parts that would convert a non-machinegun into a machinegun, it seems pretty clear to me that Congress wanted to capture things like bumpstocks that might allow a weapon to operate in effect as a machinegun.

This is why hypertechnical readings of laws are fucking stupid. Does anyone seriously consider it likely, had they been able to predict the invention of bump stocks, that Congress would've intended to exempt them when they originally drafed 26 U.S.C. §5845? 

[Captainant 26,902]

lol yall are out here trying to read the tealeaves on why the judges ruled one way or another in this continental game of Calvinball

[wildcat09 28,486]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

lol yall are out here trying to read the tealeaves on why the judges ruled one way or another in this continental game of Calvinball

Also this. It's much more likely that they just think people should be able to buy bump stocks than that the majority was really just reading the statute neutrally and thought their reading was the best. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,959]

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The relevant statutory language is: "[t]he term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include...any part designed and intended...for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun..." 

You can read this the way Thomas does, as requiring one depression of the trigger to fire more than one shot to qualify, or you can read this the way the dissent does, reading "function" as the human operation of the trigger.  Both readings are reasonable. However, given the additional language also capturing parts that would convert a non-machinegun into a machinegun, it seems pretty clear to me that Congress wanted to capture things like bumpstocks that might allow a weapon to operate in effect as a machinegun.

This is why hypertechnical readings of laws are fucking stupid. Does anyone seriously consider it likely, had they been able to predict the invention of bump stocks, that Congress would've intended to exempt them when they originally drafed 26 U.S.C. §5845? 

She used the "difference" in those to support her argument for why they used the word function instead of pull, which wasn't really necessary because she had already used the M2 as an example where you pushed the trigger instead of pull. She then goes on to used these guns as examples where it is clear she doesn't even have an element understanding of the technical details of how they function, despite that being a key part of her argument. Furthermore, her argument is essentially that 1+1=1, and the history confirms that, nevermind that for over a decade history actually agreed on the opposite until the legal genius of Donald Trump came along and informed everyone we were wrong. But I guess you can keep sucking his legal dick (as long as je doesn't pay you any hush money) while you toss out other cornerstones of legal theory like the rule of lenity.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,959]

This whole thing reminds me of Primtz v United States, where all of the "liberal" judges dissented because the question involved guns. However it set the precedent that the federal government cannot compel state or local law enforcement to enforce federal laws. A precedent which now allows states to legalize marijuana and have sanctuary cities. If the "liberal" side of the court had gotten their way in that case, there would be significantly fewer freedoms in other areas of society. But they blindly opposed it because guns. 

[wildcat09 28,486]

12 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

She used the "difference" in those to support her argument for why they used the word function instead of pull, which wasn't really necessary because she had already used the M2 as an example where you pushed the trigger instead of pull. She then goes on to used these guns as examples where it is clear she doesn't even have an element understanding of the technical details of how they function, despite that being a key part of her argument. Furthermore, her argument is essentially that 1+1=1, and the history confirms that, nevermind that for over a decade history actually agreed on the opposite until the legal genius of Donald Trump came along and informed everyone we were wrong. But I guess you can keep sucking his legal dick (as long as je doesn't pay you any hush money) while you toss out other cornerstones of legal theory like the rule of lenity.

You can suck my dick, buddy.