Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

A big issue that is touted by the Left WRT gun rights is using proper force. So if somebody is only trying to bash your head in, you shouldn't have the right to use lethal force. You should only have the right to bash your attacker's head in. You see this concept a lot, especially with cop shootings ("he only had a knife why didn't they just shoot him in the arm?")

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well rising Republican star Josh Hawley has gone on the record saying he will only support the nominee if they go on the record saying Roe was "incorrectly decided". I guess that's not quite the same thing as a promise to overturn.

[iam416]

A big issue that is touted by the Left WRT gun rights is using proper force. So if somebody is only trying to bash your head in, you shouldn't have the right to use lethal force. You should only have the right to bash your attacker's head in. You see this concept a lot, especially with cop shootings ("he only had a knife why didn't they just shoot him in the arm?")

That's a State-law issue, not a Constititonal issue. Self-defense is fundamentally either state common law-based or codified in state statute. Minnesota can go ahead and pass a law that makes it illegal to defend yourself. That's not unconstitutional.

[iam416]

Well rising Republican star Josh Hawley has gone on the record saying he will only support the nominee if they go on the record saying Roe was "incorrectly decided". I guess that's not quite the same thing as a promise to overturn.

In typical fashion, you're going to ignore what the Supreme Court actually did and cite a Senator. I'm sure you could cite a dozen more.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court -- the one w/ Gorsuch and Kav on it -- found a Louisiana law restricting access to be unconstitutional. In the meantime, the Supreme Court -- the one w/ Gorsuch and Kav on it -- found that because of sex apparently means you can't discriminate against gay folks.

But, sure, Hawley. Great fucking point.

[Hannibal]

That's a State-law issue, not a Constititonal issue. Self-defense is fundamentally either state common law-based or codified in state statute. Minnesota can go ahead and pass a law that makes it illegal to defend yourself. That's not unconstitutional.

Not really sure about your logic here. You have no more uncontestable a right than to defend your own body from harm. If it's not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, then that is because the Founding Fathers could not possibly envision a nightmare future in which people like DSL existed in large numbers. Reading self defense into the Constitution is less of a stretch than any decision that the Left has foisted on us since the Warren Court. At the very least, if those issues get to the USSC, I know who I want sitting on the seats.

[iam416]

Hannibal:

It could, I suppose, be an Constituitional issue IF a State passed a law prohibiting self-defense. But, I can't imagine the Supreme Court finding an unenumerated right and then taking that unenumerated right and saying exactly what it does and doesn't protect. YMMV, but I can't see it.

There are arguments out there advocating your general position, but just don't see it gaining any traction absent some sort of egregiously awful state law. Commensurate force laws don't even come close (IMO).

[Dr. Strangelove]

In typical fashion, you're going to ignore what the Supreme Court actually did and cite a Senator. I'm sure you could cite a dozen more.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court -- the one w/ Gorsuch and Kav on it -- found a Louisiana law restricting access to be unconstitutional. In the meantime, the Supreme Court -- the one w/ Gorsuch and Kav on it -- found that because of sex apparently means you can't discriminate against gay folks.

But, sure, Hawley. Great fucking point.

However, the Louisiana case you're referring to in the above, Kav and Gorsuch both sided with Louisiana and their abortion restrictions. Only Roberts was with the liberals (who are one short now) and he only did so because he's a big believer in following precedent, even precedent he doesn't like -- the circumstances were near identical to the 2016 Texas case in which Roberts was in favor of the abortion restrictions.

Maybe an outright reversal of Roe isn't going to happen (so long as Roberts is around) but if states try to restrict abortion to the point where it's still technically legal but an impossibility? At least five current members of the court have said they're okay with that. And Barrett is too.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Not really sure about your logic here. You have no more uncontestable a right than to defend your own body from harm. If it's not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, then that is because the Founding Fathers could not possibly envision a nightmare future in which people like DSL existed in large numbers. Reading self defense into the Constitution is less of a stretch than any decision that the Left has foisted on us since the Warren Court. At the very least, if those issues get to the USSC, I know who I want sitting on the seats.

It fills me with delight knowing I make your continued existence an utter nightmare. Now I know how Wiz must feel.

[Hannibal]

Talent -- I see what you are saying vis-a-vis some of the states vs. federal stuff, but I think that you're not thinking long term or big picture enough. The trend for the past couple of generations seems to be that everything eventually ends up at the USSC. I think that every one of those issues that I mentioned is going to see a big time legal battle with potential to go all the way to the top.

I totally forgot about immigration before. I guarantee you that it's only a matter of time before the USSC is faced with the decision to more or less make open borders the official interpretation of the Constitution. Combine that with universal "free" health care and it's pretty obvious where this is all headed.

[lineygoblue]

Now, I don't have a poll in front of me as to what Montana voters think about gun rights. But, I have my guesses.

Try burning down one of their rural communities and you'll find out immediately.

[THE_WIZARD_]

It fills me with delight knowing I make your continued existence an utter nightmare. Now I know how Wiz must feel.

I long for your feelings...

[lineygoblue]

Nancy Pelosi said over the weekend, while speaking with George Stupidnopolis, that she would be willing to consider impeachment charges against Trump if he moves to replace RBG.

Can any of our legal beagles in here tell me what in the world Trump could be charged with if he does so? You can make all sorts of "McConnell is a liar" arguments, or "its an election year" arguments, but what CRIME or MISDEMEANOR could Trump be charged with for simply naming a nominee?

DSL? Jon? Seriously now. What would you charge him with? You guys support Ms. Pelosi pretty faithfully.

And "gross stupidity" doesn't apply, because any politician can be charged with that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

...I want you to know that I'm gonna miss your love, the minute you walk out that door...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nancy Pelosi said over the weekend, while speaking with George Stupidnopolis, that she would be willing to consider impeachment charges against Trump if he moves to replace RBG.

Can any of our legal beagles in here tell me what in the world Trump could be charged with if he does so? You can make all sorts of "McConnell is a liar" arguments, or "its an election year" arguments, but what CRIME or MISDEMEANOR could Trump be charged with for simply naming a nominee?

DSL? Jon? Seriously now. What would you charge him with? You guys support Ms. Pelosi pretty faithfully.

And "gross stupidity" doesn't apply, because any politician can be charged with that.

I have no idea what she was talking about nor is "impeachment" gonna happen. She's sounding more and more like Trump herself.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Talent -- I see what you are saying vis-a-vis some of the states vs. federal stuff, but I think that you're not thinking long term or big picture enough. The trend for the past couple of generations seems to be that everything eventually ends up at the USSC. I think that every one of those issues that I mentioned is going to see a big time legal battle with potential to go all the way to the top.

I totally forgot about immigration before. I guarantee you that it's only a matter of time before the USSC is faced with the decision to more or less make open borders the official interpretation of the Constitution. Combine that with universal "free" health care and it's pretty obvious where this is all headed.

The problem is that the Constitution is silent on immigration. Until the late 1800's there wasn't much attempt at creating a national immigration policy. Everything was run by the states. And until the 14th Amendment, the Constitution is pretty vague about how to define citizenship.