Gorsuch confirmation hearing.

[derpkitteh]

Please tell me for example the robotic interpretation of "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".

no bail in the thousands of dollars, no fines(for crimes that only call for a fine instead of jail time) into huge numbers, no torture.

simplistic.

[alexw]

So let me see, you think that in the middle of a bill of rights, you have a bit concerning the duty to serve in the militia. That is just absurd.

And I can link dozens of articles by conservatives claiming the polar opposite of your post by a liberal. For example: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...g-and-purpose/

But that is wrong. For hundreds of years no court ruled in the way you suggested. It's only recently that is was reinterpreted to mean citizens have a right to guns. Here for example is what the Tennessee SC said in 1840 -

"A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."

Here's the thing the words "bear arms" doesn't mean what you think it does. The meaning has changed over time. Citizens "under arms" were those militarily equipped and capable of going to war, thus a nation might have "5 million under arms". That is why we have the phrase well regulated militias as they were the individuals who at that time were capable of going to war in such a manner outside of any standing army of the federal government.

Just because you and those like you have reinterpreted it and like that reinterpretation doesn't mean its right. We full well know the original meaning. If that isn't the case then point me to some cases 70, 100, or more years ago where the courts ruled that individuals outside of militia's had a right to guns. Of course you can't because they don't exist. Its only a recent phenomenon resulting from reinterpretation by activist right wing judges.

As for why it was included there in the bill of rights that is obvious. Some of the founders were worried about a tyrannical federal government, akin to the kings and queens of Europe. To prevent that, to protect the rights of the people, state militia's would if necessary fight the federal government if such a thing did occur, and that meant that the right of the states to create such militias needed to exist. Ergo the bill of rights clause making it impossible for the federal government to outlaw state militias and so disarm them.

[Theinquisition]

I've watched bits of it. Gorsuch seems to be a pretty standard conservative judge. His philosophy is originalism/textualism: read into the law only what is there, (not what you want to be there), and interpret it with an eye towards the original meaning of those who wrote it. And if you think it should be changed, pass a new law, or put forward a constitutional amendment.

As it should be.

[Beazy]

But that is wrong. For hundreds of years no court ruled in the way you suggested. It's only recently that is was reinterpreted to mean citizens have a right to guns. Here for example is what the Tennessee SC said in 1840 -

"A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."

Here's the thing the words "bear arms" doesn't mean what you think it does. The meaning has changed over time. Citizens "under arms" were those militarily equipped and capable of going to war, thus a nation might have "5 million under arms". That is why we have the phrase well regulated militias as they were the individuals who at that time were capable of going to war in such a manner outside of any standing army of the federal government.

Just because you and those like you have reinterpreted it and like that reinterpretation doesn't mean its right. We full well know the original meaning. If that isn't the case then point me to some cases 70, 100, or more years ago where the courts ruled that individuals outside of militia's had a right to guns. Of course you can't because they don't exist. Its only a recent phenomenon resulting from reinterpretation by activist right wing judges.

As for why it was included there in the bill of rights that is obvious. Some of the founders were worried about a tyrannical federal government, akin to the kings and queens of Europe. To prevent that, to protect the rights of the people, state militia's would if necessary fight the federal government if such a thing did occur, and that meant that the right of the states to create such militias needed to exist. Ergo the bill of rights clause making it impossible for the federal government to outlaw state militias and so disarm them.

Give it a rest. The supreme court have never ruled it unconstitutional for an American citizen to own a fire arm. This has held for over 200 years and has been a set precedence throughout our history....... to deny it makes you look like a crazy person who has to resort to interpretations that had no effect on any ruling, and semantics to win this argument.

[Daelak]

But that is wrong. For hundreds of years no court ruled in the way you suggested. It's only recently that is was reinterpreted to mean citizens have a right to guns. Here for example is what the Tennessee SC said in 1840 -

"A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."

Here's the thing the words "bear arms" doesn't mean what you think it does. The meaning has changed over time. Citizens "under arms" were those militarily equipped and capable of going to war, thus a nation might have "5 million under arms". That is why we have the phrase well regulated militias as they were the individuals who at that time were capable of going to war in such a manner outside of any standing army of the federal government.

Just because you and those like you have reinterpreted it and like that reinterpretation doesn't mean its right. We full well know the original meaning. If that isn't the case then point me to some cases 70, 100, or more years ago where the courts ruled that individuals outside of militia's had a right to guns. Of course you can't because they don't exist. Its only a recent phenomenon resulting from reinterpretation by activist right wing judges.

As for why it was included there in the bill of rights that is obvious. Some of the founders were worried about a tyrannical federal government, akin to the kings and queens of Europe. To prevent that, to protect the rights of the people, state militia's would if necessary fight the federal government if such a thing did occur, and that meant that the right of the states to create such militias needed to exist. Ergo the bill of rights clause making it impossible for the federal government to outlaw state militias and so disarm them.

Precisely, this is why major battles during the revolutionary war were either at armories, in routes to armories, or as retaliation of the destruction of armories. Armories housed all the munition and arms militias used to fight for their communities.

[IIamaKing]

Real cheeky



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

Boy that's a real hard nut to crack ain't it

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

People, not militia.

[Daelak]

People, not militia.

People in a well-regulated militia, like Bunker Hill.

[alexw]

Give it a rest. The supreme court have never ruled it unconstitutional for an American citizen to own a fire arm. This has held for over 200 years and has been a set precedence throughout our history....... to deny it makes you look like a crazy person who has to resort to interpretations that had no effect on any ruling, and semantics to win this argument.

Errr the SCOTUS has ruled many times on restricting arms. Its the reason you can't by a machine gun or a surface to air missile. So I don't know where you get the daft idea from that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled in that way.

[IIamaKing]

People in a well-regulated militia, like Bunker Hill.

It doesn't say that, it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Not going to argue this further, SCotUS says I am right and you are wrong, thats all I need.

- - - Updated - - -

Errr the SCOTUS has ruled many times on restricting arms. Its the reason you can't by a machine gun or a surface to air missile. So I don't know where you get the daft idea from that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled in that way.

SCotUS has ruled that 2A is not talking about a militias right, its talking about the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

[Matchles]

He's not as conservative as Scalia.

I don't think I'd agree there. I'm not watching the hearing so maybe he is sounding less conservative. But based on his record he is more conservative than everyone on the court except Thomas.

[Beazy]

Errr the SCOTUS has ruled many times on restricting arms. Its the reason you can't by a machine gun or a surface to air missile. So I don't know where you get the daft idea from that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled in that way.

I can easily and legally own a machine gun, not sure where you heard that dumb shit from.

Missiles are not fire arms, and have never been classified as such. LoL where are you getting this info from?

[sheggaro]

we should really take the supreme court out of the hands of those who would taint it with partisanship.

there should be only a robotic, unfeeling loyalty to uphold the law and constitution in the supreme court. no remorse, no feelings, no loyalty to any set of ideals other than those inscribed in the book of law.

that's precisely the kind of judges Gorsuch and Scalia are (were)

or at least the closest thing to that as no one is truly 100% objective all the time

this is why liberals are so afraid of him and why they used to be so afraid of Scalia, they are the polar opposite of activist judges (Ginsburg, Sotomayor) who believe to be philosopher kings deciding for all of us what the law is and what it shouldn't be based solely on their 'superior' interpretation of it

[alexw]

It doesn't say that, it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Not going to argue this further, SCotUS says I am right and you are wrong, thats all I need.

- - - Updated - - -



SCotUS has ruled that 2A is not talking about a militias right, its talking about the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Yes it did in 2008. That was the reinterpretation of the constitution by activist right wing judges that I'm talking about. Hence if Gorsuch is a strict constitutionalist he would help overturn that which is why I'm surprised hes getting such support from the political right.

But my guess is that he isn't actually a constitutionalist, but rather just another right wing activist judge.

[Matchles]

SCotUS has ruled that 2A is not talking about a militias right, its talking about the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Not exactly, Heller found an individual right to keep and bear arms, but it does not directly overturn Miller and as such it doesn't take it out of the purview of a militia (which is why there can still be reasonable restrictions on ownership and types of guns that can be owned).

[Citizen T]

?????

We know for a fact as to the original meaning of the second amendment. It has nothing to do with individual private gun ownership and everything to do with the creation and maintenance of state militia's. Ergo if the second amendment was kept to its original meaning then the only people who have a legal right to firearms are people who are member's of state militia's, which, I guess, would in this day and age be members of the national guard.

Yup Politico is certainly the best source of information. Since you like walls of text, here's the actual words on one of those that helped create the Second Amendment.

... Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

[Matchles]

I can easily and legally own a machine gun, not sure where you heard that dumb shit from.

Missiles are not fire arms, and have never been classified as such. LoL where are you getting this info from?

There are many states where you can not own NFA restricted guns.

[Daelak]

It doesn't say that, it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Not going to argue this further, SCotUS says I am right and you are wrong, thats all I need.

No it doesn't. You are putting a period where there is no period before that clause that has everything to do with a well regulated militia, like the Springfield armory in Massachusetts which was the major reason why we even have a country. This is why is was the 2nd amendment, the importance of a well regulated militia, in conjunction with the Springfield Armory was beyond reproach. Without that initial first clause in the 2nd amendment, it was meaningless. Like the 3rd and 1st, it was also guidelines states could use in case another government imposed their will against the states.

[Dug]

Errr the SCOTUS has ruled many times on restricting arms. Its the reason you can't by a machine gun or a surface to air missile. So I don't know where you get the daft idea from that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled in that way.

You can buy and own machine guns if you take the necessary steps and have a load of money.

[alexw]

I can easily and legally own a machine gun, not sure where you heard that dumb shit from.

Missiles are not fire arms, and have never been classified as such. LoL where are you getting this info from?

It doesn't say fire arms in the constitution. It says ARMS. And no you cannot just go out and buy a machine gun. There's a few in circulation still purchasable it's true. But the numbers are declining and eventually there will be zero. That doesn't sound like unrestricted to me.

[derpkitteh]

that's precisely the kind of judges Gorsuch and Scalia are (were)

or at least the closest thing to that as no one is truly 100% objective all the time

this is why liberals are so afraid of him and why they used to be so afraid of Scalia, they are the polar opposite of activist judges (Ginsburg, Sotomayor) who believe to be philosopher kings deciding for all of us what the law is and what it shouldn't be based solely on their 'superior' interpretation of it

from what i know, they opposed same-sex marriage. a robotic, unfeeling view would not include religious beliefs, and the therefore the right of all to marry would not be in question.

if the constitution says a man and a woman, then there would be a contradiction that would need a constitutional amendment. either removing the right to the "pursuit of happiness" and free expression, or changing it to not say man or woman in relation to marriage.