Wait.... You think courts create/pass legislation? BWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood Thanks for playing.....
Or until they resign... If Roberts wants to keep his legacy somewhat clean, there are two corrupt justices he'll have to deal with. Or Democrats will have to add MORE justice positions for life. Anyway.... off-topic.
yeah Democrats are known to threaten such idiocy when they don't like rulings that actually follow the constitution
You are using the wrong parameter. Democrats are not "originalists". Well... at least I hope. Originalism is BUNK. Different topic, though.
Bullshit. Originalism is the only proper way to interpret the Constitution and Laws as they are written. The 'living document' is complete hogwash, because it says what it says, and if you and a whole lot of others don't like something about it, there is a method to change it. It's difficult, and for good reasons, but it can be done, and it is the ONLY proper way to change it to mean what you want it to mean. Fortunately for those of us who actually value freedom, what you want, at least on this topic, will not be happening in either of our lifetimes. Hell, if you were in your 50s pre-Roe, wouldn't that make you almost 100 now??
The large majority of liberals disagree with that. So the point is that you cannot equate them to hypocritical claims by Republican activist justices who say they are originalists when it's clear to anybody who is paying attention that they aren't. The poster will need to find a different attack strategy. Heller is the best example that any who claim to be, but voted for it, are hypocrites. These threads demonstrate that they had to ignore, not just historical facts, but English as a language.
leftwing judges have generally put the interests of collectivism ahead of veracity and accurate interpretations of the constitution
Regardless... your attempt to justify activist justices who CLAIM to be originalists by accusing Democrats of not being originalists either fails because of the fact that Democrats have never CLAIMED to be originalists. That was my point and your attempts to change the subject indicate that my point is made.
the second amendment guarantees an individual right. the leftist judges who pretended otherwise are dishonest
Maybe. I've seen some argue that it's not an individual right but, if it is, it does look to me like Trump violated it by not allowing transgenders to keep and bear arms. And I would agree, as a personal opinion, that it was their 2nd A right to do so. In the military, of course, which is how We the People can bear arms to defend the security of a free state according to current rules defining "well regulated", like the 2nd A mandates. But that's also a different topic. Feel free to open a thread about yet another violation of oru rights by Trump, if you want,
Isn't it sad? They can own weapons but, under Trump, they weren't allowed to keep and bear arms and defend the security of a free state. I may not be an "originalist", but I AM the only one here using the original words as written and approved by the States.
that's idiocy. you are claiming they couldn't serve in the regular military is the same as saying they weren't allowed to keep and bear arms. that's totally wrong and you know it. It is based on your fraudulent claim that KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS only means in the context of a regular army. Which of course is false since even you claimed the second is about MILITIA activity which is DIFFERENT than regular military service. FAIL
If what is described in the constitution is an individual right, that would be the one being violated. Individuals are not allowed to defend "the security of a free state" on behalf of the United States any other way. It was just a hypothetical "if" in an attempt to find anything in your post that might conceivably make any sense. Not MY claim. I wish it were. But it's the claim of the the most prominent linguists and historians in the country. I'm just explaining it to you. I appreciate you that you think so highly that you attribute it so me, though.
so it is your learned opinion that if someone cannot serve in the regular armed forces-they are not protected by the concept of keeping and bearing arms? Do you also claim that the second amendment does not protect say me-I am 64> or someone who was medically unable to serve in the regular army. Nothing your linguistic buddies you have ever posted- have stated that the second amendment doesn't also including owning firearms by private citizens or that "keep and bear" excludes any other reason from protection. that's where you fail and where your reliance on "linguists" is specious
You don't know? LOL, now that's a gut buster. Are you claiming that the inability to serve in the regular armed forces also means someone cannot serve in a state militia?
BWWAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHA! You think people have the right to serve in the US military and/or state militias!! BWWAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHA! It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood Thanks for playing...
I am a West Point graduate... Airborne... Ranger... seen combat (although not a lot)... American citizens are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms... that's part of what I risked my life for.
Golem argues Trump denied Transgenders the right to keep and bear arms because he didn't want them serving in the military. So Golem is essentially arguing that "keep and bear" means serving in the regular military of the US.
Oh! I see. So lacking arguments to debate the topic of this thread, you wish to instead go off-topic grabbing on to a passing comment. It won't work! If you want to discuss other topics, open a thread.
Jesus! You're loud. Looks like you found the perfect way to avoid serious posters from reading your posts.
