Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

In this case, you're debating with your opinion, not facts, and you choose to ignore facts -- the relevant rulings from whom the opinion, you say, DO matter - because you know they negate/overrule your opinion, and, more importantly, they stop you from doing what you want to do.

So, feel free to express your opinion; in preemptive response, we counter with these facts:

- The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes
- The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
- A ban on "bearable arms", without respect to any standard of scrutiny, violates the constitution
- A legal requirement to secure firearms, without respect to any standard of scrutiny, violates the constitution
- Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history; It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
- The court outright rejects the “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny as having one step too many -- Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context.
- . In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest Only if a firearm regulation is demonstrably consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”'
- You may not like these facts, but you do not get to ignore them

To save time, I will simply reference this post in response.

 

LOL FDR couldn't get the court packed and he was riding a wave. Biden doesn't have that advantage. You're going to need to do an amendment.

Redressing grievances with a court case is not PLANTING someone ffs.

HARRIS TAKES OVER

 

That's literally what those judges he cites complain of: But I WANNA!!! YOURE LITERALLY HITLER!!!!11111

 

Your claim 'your opinion re; Bruen does not matter', misses the point of this forum--to debate, whether yours or my opinion matters is a red herring. In other words, it's a meaningless statement. Now then....

Several judges have expressed concerns about the Supreme Court's decision NYRSPA v Bruen, particularly criticizing the ruling's reliance on "history and tradition" to determine the constitutionality of firearms regulations under the Second Amendment. They find this approach to be "unworkable" for various reasons:

Judge Robert Miller Jr. (appointed by Reagan) from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana expressed his reluctance in applying the Bruen test. He feared that if the ruling was correctly interpreted, most of Congress's laws developed to protect public safety and the right to bear arms might be deemed unconstitutional. He also mentioned that it would be insulting to the legacy of 18th-century Americans to assume they would forbid future generations from regulating guns in new ways.

Judge Irene Berger appointed by Barack Obama to the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Berger pointed out that Bruen requires attorneys to conduct original historical research into obscure statutory and common law authority from the 18th century, despite having no background or expertise in such research.

Judge Ellen Hollander also appointed by Barack Obama, from the District of Maryland highlighted the impracticality of the Bruen decision, noting the difficulty in resolving historical inquiries with certainty and the likelihood of producing inconsistent results. She also questioned the appropriateness of courts making policy judgments better suited for political branches.

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman in the Northern District of Illinois, she criticized the Bruen test for being insensitive to the history of slavery. Her criticism was in the context of a ruling on a law barring convicted felons from possessing firearms.

In his dissent to the Bruen decision, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the historical-tradition test depends entirely on the level of generality at which historical analogies are conducted. He highlighted the difficulties in interpreting historical regulations and the potential for overlooking subtle nuances.

These judges' criticisms reflect a broader concern that the Bruen decision's methodology is overly reliant on historical interpretation, which may not be feasible or appropriate given the changes in society and technology since the founding era. This approach could lead to inconsistent outcomes and overlooks the complexities of modern issues related to firearms regulation.

 

I admit it will be difficult, but re-balancing the court is a north star, for some dems, anyway. as for 'packing the court', with a 6/3 conservative court, it is already packed, or rather, stacked conservative. Packing the court merely seeks to unstack it. Also, the court isn't large enough to handle the work load, and evidence of that fact is the ever increasing 'shadow docket'.

And here's why it might just be a stroke of genius. Think about balancing the ideological scales. Right now, you've got a Court that some argue leans too heavily one way. Adding more justices could tip it back to a more even keel.

And let's talk diversity. We're in a kaleidoscope of a society, yet our highest court doesn't quite mirror that. More seats mean more opportunities to reflect the rich tapestry of this nation in terms of race, gender, backgrounds, and beliefs.

History's on my side here, too. The number of justices has been a game of musical chairs through the centuries. So, changing the count? It's not rewriting the rulebook; it's just playing by the historical playbook. Yes, I've heard the argument that the right will just add more. No, I don't think they will.

Modern problems require modern solutions. The legal landscape is like a hydra – cut off one head, two more pop up. A bigger Court could be just the weapon you need to tackle the ever-growing complexities of our legal system.
Let's think about the influence game. Right now, each justice wields significant power. More justices dilute this concentration, potentially leading to more balanced, less extreme decisions.

As for retirement, think of it as a graceful nudge. With a bigger bench, justices might be more inclined to pass the baton, knowing they're not leaving their team a player down.

Now, picture a Court not just bigger, but smarter in its operations. You're dealing with a workload that's ballooned thanks to a population spike and an avalanche of intricate legal issues. By splitting a larger Court into panels for the run-of-the-mill cases and bringing everyone together for the blockbuster issues, you're streamlining the process without skimping on the gravitas for the big-ticket cases.

But here's the clincher – it's not just about more seats at the table. It's about countering what some see as underhanded tactics in past appointments. It's about sending a message: The Court is not a chess piece to be moved at will by the powers-that-be.

So, you're not just adding numbers; you're recalibrating the scales of justice, ensuring they tip fairly and representatively, in a Court that's as diverse, dynamic, and deep-thinking as the nation it serves. How's that for judicial reform with a twist of 21st-century savvy?

 

Lazy? WTF are computers for but to aid humans in their toil? Did you call the invention of the plow, and those who decided to use it instead of a shovel, as 'lazy' just because a plow made the job easier? Your point is meaningless, and, your point is a red herring, elaborated on more below:.

Doesn't really matter. The point of the forum is to debate.

Chat gets it right about as much as anyone on this forum gets it right ,and where it's wrong, you're here to debate it.

chat passed the bar, the medical exam, is used by science to solve problems, programmers to program, writers for editing and essay and fiction ideas, chat is useful tool and is growing exponentially in it's accuracy. You deny chat you will be like the guys poo pooing the automobile when it was introduced.

So, if you disagree with any point, no matter from where that point comes, just debate it. That's the point of the forum, right?

I'm not seeing a problem.

Chat was NEVER meant for court room usage; It says right on the opening page to 'fact check'.

one thing I like about chat is that it isn't an a**hole like some people are.

And, another point that is getting lost on you chat haters, I often write out a complete post in my style, and chat will make it more neutral in tone, and ask chat to rewrite it, and chat takes all that stuff out, and puts it into a more digestible style, also correcting any dangling modifiers, split infinitives, syntax errors, cohesiveness, etc. I don't do it all the time, but every so often, it makes the post 'better'.

 

We also have laws against murder.

 

Your arguments against Bruen?
At least as meaningless.

If by "unworkable" you mean "we can't restrict the right to keep and bear arms like we want to", then sure.
That is, after all; the entire point of the 2nd Amendment and the primary objective of Bruen.

 

Rebuttals that do not rise above 'you are wrong' (such as your comment) are not arguments.
You do have to state your case why that is your opinion. If not, my only response can be, your comment is rejected as not being substantive.

Please reread what was written about what the Judges said. I can find the source documents, if you want.

 

Bravo!

 

My response makes exactly the point I intended to make; the fact you do not like it does not invalidate it.
-You- may 'debate' Bruen all you want -- as you debate with your opinion, not facts, and as you choose to ignore facts which run contrary to your opinion, the value, and practical effect, of your debate is exactly zero.

Unnecessary - as each of them, in one way or another, makes the argument I presented, my response stands.

 

Your only argument you've provided thus far is, in essence, 'you are wrong'.

That is not an argument.

 

You refuse to present an opinion that conforms to the facts laid out in post #251.
Your refusal to do so proves the point made in post # 261.

 

When the machine ****s it up, or makes **** up, its not assisting you to do less work. Its not helping your workproduct be better, its making it worse.

It does matter: Your argument, or rather chat GPTs argument, is wrong in an important and nuanced fashion. This leads to an incorrect result. Which is why GPT is banned for legal pleadings.

IDK how to tell you this chief, but passing the bar is really easy. I studied for less than 30 days for it. Its stupid simple, and you can get a passing score off of mostly rote memorization of basic rules.
That doesn't translate to doing effective high flight appellate work.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-y...ng-fake-chatgpt-cases-legal-brief-2023-06-22/

I DID. I DID point out what was ****ed up with your argument, or rather with ChatGPT's argument since you didn't contribute any bandwidth there.
And you're here trying to deflect to talk about Chat GPT and how much you like it, calling me an ******* and a hater for ****'s sake, rather than accepting that the argument offered by ChatGPT is flawed as I have already demonstrated to you.

 

It was during FDR's time. It was LITERALLY one of his signature proposed legislative acts for his cronies to take. Even he couldn't get it done, riding the largest wave of public support any president has ever seen.

To your arguments RE: Packing the Court is respond: No. Absolutely not. Not no, but HELL no.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvic...hael_cohens_lawyer_gets_caught_using_chatgpt/

Exhibit "A" as to why you should not use Chat GPT.

 

In a court room, where someone's liberty or wallet is at stake.

For someone that is supposed to be smart, it's odd you don't see the fallacy of applying that standard to a debate forum.

It says right on the opening page of Chat 'check your facts'.

This is a debate forum, if someone gets something wrong, you debate the point.

It's why we are here.

Jeez, I swear, some lawyer you are.

Moreover, the skill of chat is prompt engineering, and if that lawyer had training on chat, he'd know that he would have had to instruct Chat not to make up stuff, and use real cases. It will follow your commands, but your commands have to be robust, detailed, and precise. But using chat for a court room isn't too swift when there are the usual tools lawyers use and are available, right?

 

Read 'The Shadow Docket'

Hell yes. FDR was years ago. It wasn't needed then, but the population and case load is what, many times over what it was then.

And the court is 6/3 which doesn't serve America well.

Read:

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

 

Do you want to start a Civil War??? Because what you wrote above, should it ever come to pass, may be the last straw that leads to precisely that. It's been said that the American Revolution was won by a mere 3% of the colonists. I haven't researched that enough to present it as absolute fact, but it makes logical sense. Imagine the bloodshed if just 3% of existing gun owners meant it when they said, "From my cold, dead fingers..." after Johnny Law shows up to steal their guns.

Even should Biden win next year, if he steps down immediately or anything close to immediately in a very transparent conspiracy to install an unelected Manchurian candidate (though she's be beyond 'candidate' at that point) will go over about as well as what I described above.

PS... The only way to 'repeal' Bruen is via Constitutional Amendment. No branch of government, including all of Congress and all of the Executive has the authority to do that.

 

In your hyper-partisan opinion.

 

They don't have to be historians, nor are historians opinions even relevant. It's a simple legal hurdle: For any given law that is being challenged in an attempt to have it overturned on Constitutional grounds, the government must show an identical (or very nearly so) LAW that was on the books in 1791. That's a yes or no. Either such a law existed, in which case the 'gun control' at issue is Constitutional, or it did not, in which case it isn't. It's digital, 1 or 0, yes or no, and all it takes is some flunky to go through all the pre-1791 statutes to see if they can find what they're looking for, and in most cases, they won't be able to because no such statutes existed. Sorry, not sorry.

 

Let's not. I don't care about diversity; if the Court consists of 9 old white men or 9 young lesbian black women, so long as they got the job based on their qualifications, and not their genitals and/or amount of melanin, that's fine either way. Merit, not quotas. Anything less is completely unacceptable, and how we managed to get a Justice who can't even define what a woman is, as she was an AA hire from the word go.

Of course they will. Not immediately, of course, if you have enough commies, er I mean Democrats to push that nonsense through the Congress, including being able to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Republicans won't have the votes. But, eventually, they will. And when they do, they'll stack it to the point that it doubles or triples, and all with hardcore right-wingers who have no problem acting as defacto legislators. Then, when the pendulum swings back to the left, which it always does, the Dems will add even more, and before you know it, we'll have more USSC Justices than we do members of Congress. Can you imagine the cluster-f**k that will cause??

 

So, you're telling me trump selected Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett because of their qualifications?

No, he selected them because the Federalist society told him to. He had no idea who to pick, and hell, he isn't qualified even to be president.

And why did the Federalist society pick them? Because they most conform to THEIR idea of how they want the constitution to be interpreted.

don't give me any crap that 'they pick justices that do what the constitution says'.

If it were that black and white, we wouldn't need supreme court justices.

I wouldn't trust the judgement of anyone who would ask a woman 'what is a woman', it's beneath the dignity of anyone seeking such a high office, and the question is disingenuous. What is the reason for the question? She wasn't being asked about what is a woman, she was being asked about her attitude towards transgenderism, and the question is DISINGENUOUS because it is NOT an honest question, and all the senator did was catch her off guard.

So, I DO NOT TRUST THE DISINGENUOUS, to pick Supreme court justices.

No, that's hysterics and some rational thought into this can solve your concerns.

No, it can be structured, insofar as how go go about it, so that no one party dominates, we can come to a negotiated agreement on how to do it, so...

1. there Are enough justices to handled the vastly increased number of cases.
2. To reduce the shadow docket to the bare minimum.
3. To balance the court so that no one party dominates, and disallow the appointment mechanism to allow one party to dominate. Increase the court, gradually.
4. A larger court gives incentive to work for consensus.
5. For example, Say a court was 4/4, you'd have stalemates, often. But not if a court was 15/15, a couple of moderates on either sidde are inevitable, that such a vote would be rare,and you could give the chief justice, the power of two votes in case of a tie. See, a 5/4 court often results in a party line vote. For example, that Heller was 5/4, party line, doesn't make for a strong precedent.
6. with 30 justices, evenly distributed along judicial philosophies, could be paneled so that twice as many cases could be heard, and only on the BIG cases would both sides join in to vote.
7, with two 15 justice panels, one could be 8/7 conservative, the other 8/7 liberal. Who gets what based on a coin toss.

Just an idea. I'm open to critique. We could cap it at that structure, with legislation.

 

Anyone who thinks a 6/3 court serves America well has a hyper partisan opinion.

Right back atcha.

 

Did I make that claim?
No?
Looks like the only hyper-partisan opinion here is yours.