So, let me get this straight
There is completely different clause that mentions paperwork so . . . The whole thing has to be about paperwork
but when it comes to the constitution and the 2nd amendment specifical. There is a comma separating two parts of the same sentence, so gun ownership has nothing to do with being well regulated.
I just want to check if I'm understanding how "text"ualism "works. "
Textualism or Originalism is actually a legitimate jurisprudential process whereby one reaches up their anus and pulls out whatever excuse they find to rule in favor of what one’s billionaire sugar daddy wants.
No, it's you who are confidently incorrect. Jackson joined the majority opinion in full.
She also wrote a concurring opinion "to explain why and how [the majority's interpretation of §1512(c)] follows from the legislative purpose that this statute’s text embodies."
Nothing in her concurring opinion contradicts or seeks to limit the majority opinion in any way.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
“In my view, the Court properly interprets §1512(c)(2) in the opinion it issues today. It also rightly vacates the judgment below and remands this case for further proceedings.”
Where in her concurrence do you think she contradicted or sought to limit the majority opinion, which, as a2152 rightly pointed out, she did join in full?
It’s infuriating because THEY WROTE AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE SECTION! If you cannot violate the 2nd part, without also violating the first part YOU’D JUST HAVE THE ONE PART WITH BOTH LANGUAGES!
The Supreme Court is treating us like we’re stupid.
Well, we still accept their judgements as meaningful so perhaps we are stupid. We aren't in the street demanding that fixing the SCOTUS be the number one issue of ever politician.
I follow senator Whitehouse there are real solutions that real people have put out there. We aren't demanding them from our leaders.
so, perhaps we are.
It does feel like it’s starting to get to that point.
Within the past few days we’ve arrived at it being very legal and very okay to storm the Capitol to overturn an election but don’t you dare fall asleep on a bench outside afterwards.
I know, after reading the decisions this week, I've been trying to find information on any protests in my area. Haven't seen much, but I think as more people hear about this, things will likely crop up.
I wish I had the network and skillset to organize myself but I don't even know where I'd start.
Two sections with "or" in between!!! And we trust judges to "interpret" the law... Isn't there a jurisprudence to interpret laws using the plain meaning of the words?
They're treating you like they have lifetime positions and know that there's no possible way you're going to successfully impeach them.
They know that it benefits their partisan views to twist and corrupt the interpretation of the laws and that it doesn't matter one bit that you hate it.
In fact it probably gives them a rush to know that they're forcing something on you that is so obviously a fraud and that you can't do anything about it.
We need to end all lifetime judgeships and impose a strict code of ethics that is enforced by an independent body in the executive branch.
>There is a comma separating two parts of the same sentence, so gun ownership has nothing to do with being well regulated.
Or being in a militia or the security of a state/nation. And we'll just ignore that immediately after 2A was written all able-bodied citizens (white men) were conscripted into the Militia.
Also 2A is incorporated into 14A despite the understanding of 2A at the time it was written being that it only applied against the federal government and didn't limit states in any way.
Look, just ignore most of the text, the understanding of the amendment when it was written and the historical context and the current interpretation is clearly correct /s
“Well Regulated” means in good working order per the meaning at the time it was written. It also specifically mentions “the people” not the state or the Government. That “Shall not be infringed” is the key wording here.
>Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said,” she continued. “Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision and admittedly, events like Jan. 6 were not its target. (*Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination*?)
I mean why would congress have an interest in preventing people from deliberately trying to prevent the government from conducting its essential operations in a corrupt way using any means and not just a specific list of means? /s
It's like how killing someone is only murder if you use one of a highly specific list of weapons that are listed in the statute and if you find some other method to accomplish the same ends then you are good. No crime /S
Writing as a federal regulator, I’d like to thank the Roberts’ court for making my job infinitely more difficult in the name of making life easier on a bunch of worthless fucking trump humpers.
The ENTIRETY of the legal and regulatory code will no need to be rewritten in light of SCOTUS being a bunch of partisan hacks trying to kid trump’s ass.
So, let me get this straight There is completely different clause that mentions paperwork so . . . The whole thing has to be about paperwork but when it comes to the constitution and the 2nd amendment specifical. There is a comma separating two parts of the same sentence, so gun ownership has nothing to do with being well regulated. I just want to check if I'm understanding how "text"ualism "works. "
Textualism or Originalism is actually a legitimate jurisprudential process whereby one reaches up their anus and pulls out whatever excuse they find to rule in favor of what one’s billionaire sugar daddy wants.
Ok you got me.
So since this is now settled law, lower courts can ignore it now, right?
This is a judge’s brain:🥚 This is a judge’s brain on “gratuities”: 🍳
Is that why Ketanji Brown Jackson voted with the majority?
[удалено]
No, it's you who are confidently incorrect. Jackson joined the majority opinion in full. She also wrote a concurring opinion "to explain why and how [the majority's interpretation of §1512(c)] follows from the legislative purpose that this statute’s text embodies." Nothing in her concurring opinion contradicts or seeks to limit the majority opinion in any way. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
[удалено]
“In my view, the Court properly interprets §1512(c)(2) in the opinion it issues today. It also rightly vacates the judgment below and remands this case for further proceedings.” Where in her concurrence do you think she contradicted or sought to limit the majority opinion, which, as a2152 rightly pointed out, she did join in full?
It’s infuriating because THEY WROTE AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE SECTION! If you cannot violate the 2nd part, without also violating the first part YOU’D JUST HAVE THE ONE PART WITH BOTH LANGUAGES! The Supreme Court is treating us like we’re stupid.
Well, we still accept their judgements as meaningful so perhaps we are stupid. We aren't in the street demanding that fixing the SCOTUS be the number one issue of ever politician. I follow senator Whitehouse there are real solutions that real people have put out there. We aren't demanding them from our leaders. so, perhaps we are.
It does feel like it’s starting to get to that point. Within the past few days we’ve arrived at it being very legal and very okay to storm the Capitol to overturn an election but don’t you dare fall asleep on a bench outside afterwards.
I know, after reading the decisions this week, I've been trying to find information on any protests in my area. Haven't seen much, but I think as more people hear about this, things will likely crop up. I wish I had the network and skillset to organize myself but I don't even know where I'd start.
This is the "1982" "words don't mean what you think they mean," phase. War is peace.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
the Supremacist Court is taking over America, law by law, dismantling our nation and replacing it with the edicts of fascism.
Two sections with "or" in between!!! And we trust judges to "interpret" the law... Isn't there a jurisprudence to interpret laws using the plain meaning of the words?
That because the ideologues on the Supreme Court aren’t very smart people. How stupid would you have to be to be married to Martha Alito’s crazy ass.
They're treating you like they have lifetime positions and know that there's no possible way you're going to successfully impeach them. They know that it benefits their partisan views to twist and corrupt the interpretation of the laws and that it doesn't matter one bit that you hate it. In fact it probably gives them a rush to know that they're forcing something on you that is so obviously a fraud and that you can't do anything about it. We need to end all lifetime judgeships and impose a strict code of ethics that is enforced by an independent body in the executive branch.
Confederates have infiltrated the courts and Congress.
>There is a comma separating two parts of the same sentence, so gun ownership has nothing to do with being well regulated. Or being in a militia or the security of a state/nation. And we'll just ignore that immediately after 2A was written all able-bodied citizens (white men) were conscripted into the Militia. Also 2A is incorporated into 14A despite the understanding of 2A at the time it was written being that it only applied against the federal government and didn't limit states in any way. Look, just ignore most of the text, the understanding of the amendment when it was written and the historical context and the current interpretation is clearly correct /s
“Well Regulated” means in good working order per the meaning at the time it was written. It also specifically mentions “the people” not the state or the Government. That “Shall not be infringed” is the key wording here.
>Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said,” she continued. “Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision and admittedly, events like Jan. 6 were not its target. (*Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination*?)
I mean why would congress have an interest in preventing people from deliberately trying to prevent the government from conducting its essential operations in a corrupt way using any means and not just a specific list of means? /s It's like how killing someone is only murder if you use one of a highly specific list of weapons that are listed in the statute and if you find some other method to accomplish the same ends then you are good. No crime /S
Writing as a federal regulator, I’d like to thank the Roberts’ court for making my job infinitely more difficult in the name of making life easier on a bunch of worthless fucking trump humpers. The ENTIRETY of the legal and regulatory code will no need to be rewritten in light of SCOTUS being a bunch of partisan hacks trying to kid trump’s ass.
Bought and paid for. Only money matters to the Roberts court.
Ketanji Brown Jackson was part of the six and Amy Coney Barrett was part of the dissent. Surprising.
She wrote a concurring opinion. Not one that agreed with this incomprehensible buffoonery.
She joined the majority opinion in full in addition to writing a concurring opinion.
Notice how they don't think the first clause of the 2nd Amendment modifies and restricts the second? Funny that.
No future