Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

My initial reaction is that the bigger decision was the 8-1 decision allowing the NC legislature to intervene to defend the a voting law it enacted. What the Ds (and some Rs) do to upend legislation is to collude with interest groups in a lawsuit against the objectionable law, offer now defense, get a district court ruling overturning the law and decline to appeal. It's all very shrewd.

In this particular case, the R legislature passed the legislation over the current Gov's veto. The current AG was in the legislature at the time and voted against it and worked with the NAACP to defeat it. Now, as AG, the NAACP sues to have the law tossed and it's the AG who is in charge of defending the bill and, well, does nothing. So, the legislature moves to intervene to defend its interests.

The question, then, is whether "the State", as it were, can have separate interests or does one State entity speak for all of them. In this particular case, the law permitted the legislature to intervene and the defense was such a brazen sham that even Kagan and Breyer had to agree that it was bullshit.

Anyway, it's a really interesting seperation-of-powers question on the state level that has a meaningful effect.

It is also an adversary-proceeding affirmation. NR explains:

"...the judicial game against legislation, constitutional provisions, and ballot initiatives by colluding with the people suing to strike down these democratic enactments: lie down, refuse to defend them, reach a settlement, or wait for a lower-court ruling and abandon the appeal. In the 2013 Hollingsworth v. Perry case, a refusal to appeal prevented the Supreme Court from hearing challenges to decisions striking down California’s ban on state recognition of same-sex marriages — a ban that passed by popular vote in California in 2008 with over 7 million votes. Thus, the voters of California could get a day in court only from California federal judges who had a deeply vested interest in ruling on one side of the case. Not every law passed by the voters should survive a court challenge, but a duly enacted law representing the public will ought to be struck down by the courts only after a full, fair adversarial presentation of the issues. That is the American way; it conflicts with the progressive supervised-democracy model in which officials who lack the constitutional power to repeal a law can nonetheless kill it permanently by temporary non-enforcement and non-defense.

This non-enforcement issue is getting bigger (think the border or the civil rights laws). Gotta love the phrase "progressive supervised-democracy model".

[Dr. Strangelove]

Something I found while bored today (and I know it's a wikipedia article but whatever)

I wasn't aware that the 2nd Amendment heavily borrows its language from pre-existing language found in multiple state constitutions. It simply eliminates the part about "standing armies" many of them had.

For the late 1700's Enlightenment crowd, professional standing armies were generally associated with tyranny. The corruption and fall of the Roman Republic was by that time usually blamed on the massive growth of Rome's legions who became a political force greater than the Senate itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#State_Constitutional_Precursors_to_the_Second_Amendment

[Dr. Strangelove]

At the end of the hearing today they showed video of three White House aides talking about Congressmen who requested pardons

* Eric Herschman, who was in the White House Counsel's office. He was also one of Trump's defense lawyers during Impeachment #1
* Cassidy Hutchinson, who was one of Mark Meadows' top aides
* Johnny McEntee, a diehard Trump loyalist who took over the Personnel Office for the entire Executive branch and began spying on anyone believed to not be completely loyal to Dear Leader

The Congresspeople named by these people as wanting a pardon:

* Andy Biggs (AZ)
* Scott Perry (PA)
* Mo Brooks (AL)
* Matt Gaetz (FL)
* Louis Gohmert (TX)
* Marjorie Taylor-Greene (GA)

In fairness to Mo Brooks, he wanted a blanket pardon for EVERY Congressman that objected to Arizona or Pennsylvania's votes.

I could've heard wrong but I believe the only person named by all three witnesses was Matt Gaetz. Who apparently started asking for a pardon in early December and wanted it tailored extremely broadly.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Get over it.

Don Henley said so.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Get over it.

Don Henley said so.

People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry

[iam416]

The Bill of Rights adopted by States immediately after the Convention are pretty direct. Mostly.

To me the dispositive point is this. Congress was granted the power to raise, control, etc the militias. It makes total sense that the military and common defense would be Federal and control over the militias is Federal. Thus, Congress can do away with the militias if they wish.

The Bill of Rights are, fundamentally, individual liberties protected against the will of the majority. They are anti-majoritarian. They are a defense against acts of Congress.

The 2nd A is part of the Bill of Rights.

IF the 2nd A rights are tied to militias then Congress could, by exercising its Article I powers, eliminate that right by eliminating militias. That would mean Congress, through a majoritarian act, could eliminate an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.

That can’t be, IMO.

There is gads of historical evidence that Thomas and Scalia marshaled together, but I still can’t really get past the foregoing.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I agree with all that yet I still think you need to STFU. It's a dichotomy I know but please...STFU.

Thanks.

Yer Pal,

THE_WIZARD_

[Dr. Strangelove]

Another thing brought up today is that Trump's people apparently took very seriously one of the most deranged internet conspiracies of them all, even worse than the Hugo Chavez horseshit

Some people believed that the Italian government (working alongside MI6, the CIA, and probably Soros, the Bilderberg Group, the Vatican, the Masons, the Rothschilds, Bohemian Grove, and the Illuminati) had spy satellites hacking voting machines all over the country and flipping votes from Trump to Biden. In what had to be an extremely embarrassing moment for him, they even forced Sec of Defense Miller to call the Italian govt and ask about it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/24/trumps-team-shared-video-alleging-mi6-backed-italian-satellites/

[THE_WIZARD_]

I still miss THE_PROPHET_ though...has been silent since the accident

[THE_WIZARD_]

More chemistry jokes...less Trump derangement...

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Bill of Rights adopted by States immediately after the Convention are pretty direct. Mostly.

To me the dispositive point is this. Congress was granted the power to raise, control, etc the militias. It makes total sense that the military and common defense would be Federal and control over the militias is Federal. Thus, Congress can do away with the militias if they wish.

The Bill of Rights are, fundamentally, individual liberties protected against the will of the majority. They are anti-majoritarian. They are a defense against acts of Congress.

The 2nd A is part of the Bill of Rights.

IF the 2nd A rights are tied to militias then Congress could, by exercising its Article I powers, eliminate that right by eliminating militias. That would mean Congress, through a majoritarian act, could eliminate an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.

That can’t be, IMO.

There is gads of historical evidence that Thomas and Scalia marshaled together, but I still can’t really get past the foregoing.

Oh i think the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun. I just think there's plenty of evidence that one of the main reasons the Founders wanted that right protected is to preserve the notion of a temporary "citizen army", like the Romans and Greeks used to have. Cincinnatus picking up his sword when the need arose, but always retiring afterwards to tend to his olive trees or whatever.

I have no clue what the Founders would think of AR-15 style rifles and if the ordinary citizen has as much of a right to own such a weapon as an 18th century single-shot flintlock. Anyone claiming to be sure of what Jefferson would think is likely talking out their ass.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The only "guns" in 1776 were muskets so the Progs say we should ban all because of that...the founding white racist piags never intended to grant rights for todays artillery of course.

Nevermind the fact that the main reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from the government.

Nothing to see here.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The only "guns" in 1776 were muskets so the Progs say we should ban all because of that...the founding white racist piags never intended to grant rights for todays artillery of course.

Nevermind the fact that the main reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from the government.

Nothing to see here.

Yeah that gets used as a reason all the time and while I can't deny it plays at least SOME role, the 2nd Amendment absolutely does not exist primarily so citizens can constantly overthrow the govt. George Washington would be bemused to learn he supported violent defiance of the federal govt considering just a few years into his Presidency he was putting down a violent rebellion against the federal govt.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Take away the 2nd Amendment and how does America differ from a police state?

[THE_WIZARD_]

"Gun Control" is an illusion. Like many things libs, progs and dems push...asking law abiding citizens to give up rights for the illusion of safety. None of these measures make a lick of difference. But sure makes progs and libs feel good. Results don't matter its the intent that does. None of these new "gun laws" will change a damn thing and they know it. But they can sure use the political capital against any pol that votes against it when a lunatic shoots people.

Kinda like the measures put in place at airports. Doesn't make anyone safer but sure makes people feel good.