Senate Democrats block confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Neil Grosuch

[Zoranon]

You blanketed "No individual right to bear arms" while the dissent is "2nd Ammend. only applies to states".
Can you read, or do you just not understand the difference? Militia of the States is just a blanket statement for citizens of the states, as per wording of the 2nd itself.

So why did Breyer write this then? "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense"?

Oh and Militia of the States means its not an individual right. Which is nonsensical interpretation.

[Kellhound]

It's funny how much conservatives are celebrating this. Gorsuch was going to get through no matter what. Now the dems don't have to deal with the filibuster in 4 years and it's 100% the republican's fault.

This is exactly what I wanted. Glad the dems didn't cave.

IF they control the Senate.

- - - Updated - - -

It would have been easier for you to say "No, I haven't read the dissent".



That's what's great about the internet, I can quote anything in 30 seconds. I shortened it to replace some of the fluff language from dissenting opinions. They always fluff up their page count.

"relates to the Militia of the States only" is kind of a key part....

- - - Updated - - -

You blanketed "No individual right to bear arms" while the dissent is "2nd Ammend. only applies to states".
Can you read, or do you just not understand the difference? Militia of the States is just a blanket statement for citizens of the states, as per wording of the 2nd itself.

There is a difference between "militia" and "the people" though.

[Citizen T]

To be fair, the GOP also realized they could leverage their position and performed the record number of filibusters in our nation's history. They filibustered like 80 federal court seats which is what forced Reid's hand.

Now, I'm not denying this at all, but two things led to this happening. First was the Democrats refusal to act on any of Bush's federal court nominations and topped with the first filibuster ever of an appeals court nominal in the person of Miguel Estrada. The Republicans just took their precedent of judicial nominee obstructionism to heart since they already had experience showing that were the tables turned the Democrats would do the same.

[Belize]

So why did Breyer write this then? "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense"?

Because he also writes/quotes:
"The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred."
and
" I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense"
And also
"colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home."

He clearly isn't going after anyone's guns, when viewed alongside my previous posts, it's clear he just thought that the 2nd was meant for the states, and didn't feel it necessary to extend it to districts.

[GreenJesus]

We can play the blame game all we want, but both sides are to blame for this current shit sandwich of a situation.

If nothing else, I feel it's a poor idea to move forward with this while the investigations into the Trump campaign/administration's possible Russian connections are concluded, which shouldn't be a very controversial statement.

But Republicans are willing to burn the house down to keep them warm for the night (getting their nominee in), because they're only looking days/weeks into the future, not years/decades.

I am confused.. what does that have at all to do with this? Might as well just shut down the entire government with that logic. When Hillary was being investigated we should have just shut down the whole state department. He was elected president through the system legally. Whether some fake news got spread on the internet by fake news sites or whatever happened it doesn't matter that he was voted president. Besides, no evidence has been found that Trump is guilty of anything.

[Kellhound]

Because he also writes/quotes:
"The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred."
and
" I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense"
And also
"colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home."

He clearly isn't going after anyone's guns, when viewed alongside my previous posts, it's clear he just thought that the 2nd was meant for the states, and didn't feel it necessary to extend it to districts.

Does the term "the people" mean different things in the 1st and 2nd then?

[Lokryn]

My god, there is some salt being thrown from all sides in this thread. lol

[Belize]

Does the term "the people" mean different things in the 1st and 2nd then?

I'm not sure what you're asking...?

We're so off-topic, but oh well.

[Edge-]

When Hillary was being investigated we should have just shut down the whole state department.

It's almost like they're two radically different investigations on two radically different topics for people in to radically different positions.

He was elected president through the system legally. Whether some fake news got spread on the internet by fake news sites or whatever happened it doesn't matter that he was voted president. Besides, no evidence has been found that Trump is guilty of anything.

Oh, so there aren't multiple actual investigations that have been going on for what, nearly a year or so by now? With tons of damning information leaking out left and right, and more revelations nearly every week? The FBI et al. is lying about all of this?

[Theodarzna]

Correct. And forcing the GOP to go nuclear is just a long term play. They had no choice but to eat shit right now.

With it gone it does mean the bad faith tactics they did during the Obama years are now gone. I mean its going to help them now during a Trump presidency, but things change.

[Kellhound]

I'm not sure what you're asking...?

We're so off-topic, but oh well.

If "the people" in the 1st are the same as "the people" in the 2nd, the rights belong to the same group.

[Zoranon]

Because he also writes/quotes:
"The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred."
and
" I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense"
And also
"colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home."

He clearly isn't going after anyone's guns, when viewed alongside my previous posts, it's clear he just thought that the 2nd was meant for the states, and didn't feel it necessary to extend it to districts.

Wrong again same dissent (McDonald):
"And a historical record that is so ambiguous cannot itself provide an adequate basis for incorporating a private right of self-defense and applying it against the States."

So yes, he was (and still is) completely against private right to bear arms.

And that was Breyer, who is considered to be the most moderate of the liberals. Oh and it was joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor who claimed during her hearing that she supported Heller.

[Bender]

Question. Why does the ideologies of judges matter so much in the US? It seems like a very obvious error either with how laws are formulated or the judges liberty to interpret laws. Ideology shouldn't matter much when it comes to interpreting law, no?

[Belize]

If "the people" in the 1st are the same as "the people" in the 2nd, the rights belong to the same group.

I agree, however, Gitmo shows us that politicians and courts make a distinction between the types of U.S. owned territories. Take that up with them *shrug*

[Citizen T]

If "the people" in the 1st are the same as "the people" in the 2nd, the rights belong to the same group.

Let's not forget the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth as well. The phrase "the people" appears in 5 of the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights but for some reason some people think it means something different for the Second.

[Draco-Onis]

The supreme court hasn't been democratic leaning. Hillary clearly stated she believes Heller was wrongly decided. Take common sense gun control out of your party's platform. You sure don't seem to care about it, you claim that we are scared of shadows. If there truly is no threat to 2a, why not remove it from the platform and run on other issues and start winning elections?

I believe that liberals not so secretly hate the 2nd amendment and see no reason to protect it. You may even jump at the chance to have it removed. False?

Most Americans are for common sense gun control that has nothing to do with the second amendment. There are some liberals who want the second amendment removed but there are also conservatives who want to make abortion a capital crime, do you want to go by them?

Please explain how the following are a threat to the second amendment.

Comprehensive background checks.
Preventing people with mental health issues from getting guns.
Smart guns to prevent toddlers and invaders from using your guns.
The ATF using computers instead of paper.

Yes you are scared of the shadows and the NRA has been suckering you for years into believing it is that easy to get rid of a constitutional amendment.

[cubby]

Well, then the precedent to remove the filibuster from things they don't like was set by Harry Reid and the Dems.

You have a nice way of combining fact and fiction. I admire it. Sean Spicer does it better of course . . . .

Reid "and the Dems" had to go nuclear on non-SCOTUS spots because the GOP set a record for filibustering judicial nominations that was actually affecting the court's ability to do it's job.

The GOP did it because they really don't give a shit about anyone but themselves (see healthcare for clarification, or, really, any of their policies).

[Citizen T]

Question. Why does the ideologies of judges matter so much in the US? It seems like a very obvious error either with how laws are formulated or the judges liberty to interpret laws. Ideology shouldn't matter much when it comes to interpreting law, no?

The two main differences are how they interpret the Constitution. Those that interpret it against the meaning of the original authors, and those that interpret it as living evolving document.

Hint: The original authors created a mechanism to change it if necessary so it is not meant to evolve without Congress and the States.

[TZucchini]

To be fair, the GOP also realized they could leverage their position and performed the record number of filibusters in our nation's history. They filibustered like 80 federal court seats which is what forced Reid's hand.

This is absolutely true. And so we're at a point where each side can blame their actions on the behavior of the other side. And we can continue down that spiral infinitely. And to some extent each side has a point.

[cubby]

He had the right to nominate, and the Senate had the right to withhold consent.

And they didn't. They weren't given a chance to vote. You continue to miss that point.