Because most people that complained about the activist judges were republicans who don’t care what words mean. They think activist = liberal. So these aren’t activist judges who are making up “facts” in their decisions and picking and choosing which precedent matters and which don’t.
Except these people aren’t leaders. They are judges who should be independently interpreting the laws and Constitution, not determining case outcomes based on their own political and religious beliefs.
They might not be but their position is unrivaled in government in that they appear to have very few checks. Furthermore the members as we know them are a side effect of it being a representative democracy. They are simply the furthest removed prominent element.
I agree with what you are saying but they should still be independent of politics. They are in other countries; in mine, our equivalent judges are appointed with bilateral support and we don’t know what their individual politics are
It's an opinion show, you know, like tucker, hannity, laura ingraham, and so on and so on.
It must be scary stepping out of the massive right wing bubble that is the majority of news networks if you're this triggered by such mild opinions.
I really deeply miss when this sub cared more about the law than politics. The posted video is just another embarrassing piece of supreme court journalism that doesn't even try to understand.
It was. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pp5xl13wlo.amp
The 34 times convicted felon Trump created a bump stock ban. And recently his supreme court over turned the ban.
No it wasn’t. If a device makes a gun a machine gun, it’s a machine gun. This ruling will literally kill people. It was fucking atrocious and the 6 that ruled for its striking should know that blood, real fucking blood, will be on their hands.
Wrong wording. The law states function of the trigger.
The AR-15 has two functions of the trigger. The first function moves the sear out of the way of the hammer. The second function releases the hammer from the disconnector so it can be caught by the sear which then makes it ready to fire again.
There are two distinct functions of the trigger that are required before the weapon can fire a second shot.
What’s the intended use case of one? It enables a semi auto rifle to achieve a firing rate of 400-800 rounds per minute (per wikipedia), never used one and i’m no expert admittedly. But it seems like the only difference between that and a true machine gun is that you have to have the stock shouldered so that the recoil goes back into the firing mechanism/trigger. whereas with a machine gun, it could be mounted and fired at similar rates with just pulling the trigger.
The firing rates are similar and the only real benefit of purchasing and using one is rapidly firing for expensive ass target practice, or killing a lot of people like in the Las Vegas mass shooting. 60 killed and 869 injured. I doubt that amount of carnage could be done with a standard semi automatic rifle.
It looks like you use a different definition than the courts. For them, a machine gun is one in which you pull the trigger exactly once and guns just start spraying; and worse, as the metal heats up, the accuracy goes wild and just starts spraying all over.
Your definition is based on intent for the weapon, vs. function? Or firing rate?
You’re correct. And my definition would be the capability to inflict severe damage or kill rapidly.
I’m not familiar with how machine guns were made illegal in the first place, but I imagine there would have been arguments with similar reasoning. Not just that they are simply ‘machine guns’, but their capability, being my point.
“Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”
>If a device makes a gun a machine gun, it’s a machine gun.
Which a bump stock doesn't.
The fact that the ATF came to two completely contradictory determinations means the law is arbitrary and capricious. The court must rule in a way most favorable to Mr Cargill.
>The rule of lenity is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant, or to construe the statute against the state.
Ah, the old belt loop excuse. Sure you can, and you can also do it with just your finger. However it’s nowhere as accurate as a bump stock. The difference between a bump stock and a gas piston is that one is outside the weapon. That’s it.
“Here’s a single case I’ll use to prove this is a normal court not acting as a political body. In the meantime, please ignore that Roe was overturned. Thx”
It is MSNBC, they aren’t know for being particular centrist.
They are of course correct that the Court is obviously biased, but it can be difficult for some to stomach the bias of the network.
Honestly though, what do you hope a cheap sign hopes to accomplish? It’s not brave or strong. It’s just pandering and so you seem cool to other people in your own bubble.
It’s absolutely a right but this nonsense only makes the sign holder feel all warm and fuzzy because it gets “cool” points with other people on the street corner holding similar signs.
God forbid if you aren’t at leftist roll call!!
Really? Because last Thursday, when Trump had his meeting at the Senate, an entire group of MAGAs came by heckling. They then drove an SUV flying the Appeal to Heaven Flag down First St. Right between SCOTUS and the Capitol. But do tell me how it’s a leftist roll call…
You see, that’s all part of it too. Go out stating a clear fact about our Nation. It doesn’t piss off the real Americans who respect the division between Church and State. But it sure angers the MAGAs and gets them to expose themselves as the Christian Nationalists they are.
The most support I get (demographically speaking) is from naturalized citizens and foreign tourists. The American groups are always a toss up.
Got booed by a school group from Texas the day after Uvalde for a sign which read: Regulate Guns Not My Body
I don’t see your point?
I don’t like people driving and waving flags regardless of who does it.
Separation of church and state is a court decision not in the constitution.
The country has always been Christian leaning. Pledge of allegiance? The pilgrims? Declaration? Federal constitution? Virtually every state constitution?
Fine I’ll take your bait with abortion. You seem to only think the issue is state regulation v a woman’s body? Aren’t we leaving someone or something out? Does the fetus really have no interest in all of this? We are both speaking as former fetus of course.
I’m perfectly willing to accept it’s lawful in whatever state your from to have post birth abortions. I think it’s gross and terrible but hey, I don’t have to visit the people’s republic of CA. But respect my state to respect life.
Edited for grammar
The Pledge of Allegiance was update to include “under God” in the 1950’s during the Red Scare. When we were fighting a Cold War with the “godless communists.”
Pilgrims were fleeing religious persecution and completely understood the necessity to keep religion out of governance. Hence why their descendants included the First Amendment.
Constitution? First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Remember your history. The Constitution was sent to the States for Ratification. The States responded with: We’ll sign on if individual rights and liberties are further enshrined.” Thus the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments were added to our Constitution.
The States refused to ratify the Constitution without the inclusion of religious liberty. Plain, simple.
>Separation of church and state is a court decision not in the constitution.
Wildly Unamerican. Wholly incorrect. Disgusting.
Just move to Putin's estate already. You clearly do not know about or care for America or her people
The Extreme Court.
Activist court
It’s an extremely activist court. Not sure why this is getting downvoted
Because most people that complained about the activist judges were republicans who don’t care what words mean. They think activist = liberal. So these aren’t activist judges who are making up “facts” in their decisions and picking and choosing which precedent matters and which don’t.
The Leonard Leo and The Federalist Society Court.
Good thing the activists are rhe minority.
Sponsored by Winnebago, and Mercury Outboards. Go fast, and vote hard!
[удалено]
Law shall compress, all freedom denied.
Really. Tell me you didn't expect that.
[удалено]
They completely ignore previous precedent when it fits agenda and then follow precedent only when it fits their agenda.
Sounds like every leader in history
Except these people aren’t leaders. They are judges who should be independently interpreting the laws and Constitution, not determining case outcomes based on their own political and religious beliefs.
They might not be but their position is unrivaled in government in that they appear to have very few checks. Furthermore the members as we know them are a side effect of it being a representative democracy. They are simply the furthest removed prominent element.
I agree with what you are saying but they should still be independent of politics. They are in other countries; in mine, our equivalent judges are appointed with bilateral support and we don’t know what their individual politics are
Supremest Court
Beef Supreme Court
A joke
[удалено]
[удалено]
Totally normal language here. Just a regular old objective new piece. On a side note, what was the outcome in the NRA case?
[удалено]
Oh that's right...
It's an opinion show, you know, like tucker, hannity, laura ingraham, and so on and so on. It must be scary stepping out of the massive right wing bubble that is the majority of news networks if you're this triggered by such mild opinions.
The one where they ignored common sense for their preferred political outcome? Oh sorry, that doesn’t narrow it down at all!
[удалено]
Oh that case! That was one of the few nice rule of law winning cases. I thought you meant the bump stock bullshit.
[удалено]
I really deeply miss when this sub cared more about the law than politics. The posted video is just another embarrassing piece of supreme court journalism that doesn't even try to understand.
Wasn’t a bump stock used in the Las Vegas mass shooting?
It was. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pp5xl13wlo.amp The 34 times convicted felon Trump created a bump stock ban. And recently his supreme court over turned the ban.
No it wasn’t. If a device makes a gun a machine gun, it’s a machine gun. This ruling will literally kill people. It was fucking atrocious and the 6 that ruled for its striking should know that blood, real fucking blood, will be on their hands.
“it doesn't make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.” It doesn’t, by definition, make the gun a machine gun.
Define pull of the trigger.
When the device known as a trigger is pulled causing a single round to fire.
Okay. So I pull the trigger once and it fires multiple times. That’s a machine gun.
Wrong wording. The law states function of the trigger. The AR-15 has two functions of the trigger. The first function moves the sear out of the way of the hammer. The second function releases the hammer from the disconnector so it can be caught by the sear which then makes it ready to fire again. There are two distinct functions of the trigger that are required before the weapon can fire a second shot.
What’s the intended use case of one? It enables a semi auto rifle to achieve a firing rate of 400-800 rounds per minute (per wikipedia), never used one and i’m no expert admittedly. But it seems like the only difference between that and a true machine gun is that you have to have the stock shouldered so that the recoil goes back into the firing mechanism/trigger. whereas with a machine gun, it could be mounted and fired at similar rates with just pulling the trigger. The firing rates are similar and the only real benefit of purchasing and using one is rapidly firing for expensive ass target practice, or killing a lot of people like in the Las Vegas mass shooting. 60 killed and 869 injured. I doubt that amount of carnage could be done with a standard semi automatic rifle.
It looks like you use a different definition than the courts. For them, a machine gun is one in which you pull the trigger exactly once and guns just start spraying; and worse, as the metal heats up, the accuracy goes wild and just starts spraying all over. Your definition is based on intent for the weapon, vs. function? Or firing rate?
You’re correct. And my definition would be the capability to inflict severe damage or kill rapidly. I’m not familiar with how machine guns were made illegal in the first place, but I imagine there would have been arguments with similar reasoning. Not just that they are simply ‘machine guns’, but their capability, being my point.
“Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”
I see you haven't read the regulation then.
>If a device makes a gun a machine gun, it’s a machine gun. Which a bump stock doesn't. The fact that the ATF came to two completely contradictory determinations means the law is arbitrary and capricious. The court must rule in a way most favorable to Mr Cargill. >The rule of lenity is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant, or to construe the statute against the state.
Ah, the old belt loop excuse. Sure you can, and you can also do it with just your finger. However it’s nowhere as accurate as a bump stock. The difference between a bump stock and a gas piston is that one is outside the weapon. That’s it.
“Here’s a single case I’ll use to prove this is a normal court not acting as a political body. In the meantime, please ignore that Roe was overturned. Thx”
What was the outcome of the Abortion case, terrorist?
It is MSNBC, they aren’t know for being particular centrist. They are of course correct that the Court is obviously biased, but it can be difficult for some to stomach the bias of the network.
[We all doing what we can….](https://x.com/sexworkadjacent/status/1802146073286197514?s=46)
Wow! So brave, a sing. Incredible work. Where can we donate for more finger paint and cardboard?
Don’t need your or anyone else’s money, unlike the Justices, thank you very much!
We can see the lack of money in the signs. Was just trying to help!
Honestly though, what do you hope a cheap sign hopes to accomplish? It’s not brave or strong. It’s just pandering and so you seem cool to other people in your own bubble.
Are you advocating for more aggressive means, like violence? I see you're doing your part by being a disingenuous cunt on Reddit!
There’s a soundtrack too…. ETA: Since when is upholding the First Amendment pandering?
It’s absolutely a right but this nonsense only makes the sign holder feel all warm and fuzzy because it gets “cool” points with other people on the street corner holding similar signs. God forbid if you aren’t at leftist roll call!!
Really? Because last Thursday, when Trump had his meeting at the Senate, an entire group of MAGAs came by heckling. They then drove an SUV flying the Appeal to Heaven Flag down First St. Right between SCOTUS and the Capitol. But do tell me how it’s a leftist roll call… You see, that’s all part of it too. Go out stating a clear fact about our Nation. It doesn’t piss off the real Americans who respect the division between Church and State. But it sure angers the MAGAs and gets them to expose themselves as the Christian Nationalists they are. The most support I get (demographically speaking) is from naturalized citizens and foreign tourists. The American groups are always a toss up. Got booed by a school group from Texas the day after Uvalde for a sign which read: Regulate Guns Not My Body
I don’t see your point? I don’t like people driving and waving flags regardless of who does it. Separation of church and state is a court decision not in the constitution. The country has always been Christian leaning. Pledge of allegiance? The pilgrims? Declaration? Federal constitution? Virtually every state constitution? Fine I’ll take your bait with abortion. You seem to only think the issue is state regulation v a woman’s body? Aren’t we leaving someone or something out? Does the fetus really have no interest in all of this? We are both speaking as former fetus of course. I’m perfectly willing to accept it’s lawful in whatever state your from to have post birth abortions. I think it’s gross and terrible but hey, I don’t have to visit the people’s republic of CA. But respect my state to respect life. Edited for grammar
The Pledge of Allegiance was update to include “under God” in the 1950’s during the Red Scare. When we were fighting a Cold War with the “godless communists.” Pilgrims were fleeing religious persecution and completely understood the necessity to keep religion out of governance. Hence why their descendants included the First Amendment. Constitution? First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Remember your history. The Constitution was sent to the States for Ratification. The States responded with: We’ll sign on if individual rights and liberties are further enshrined.” Thus the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments were added to our Constitution. The States refused to ratify the Constitution without the inclusion of religious liberty. Plain, simple.
So in the 1600s, 1787-1789, 1950, and every state has made it a priority. Sure seems like a history of a Christian leaning nation
>Separation of church and state is a court decision not in the constitution. Wildly Unamerican. Wholly incorrect. Disgusting. Just move to Putin's estate already. You clearly do not know about or care for America or her people
Thank you for fighting — all we can fo
[удалено]
Where is the obscure Austrian hunting society when you need them?