Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

yeah it's sad that three Democrat appointees completely ignore the clear intent and words of the constitution in order to try to advance an unconstitutional position.

 

Are they not qualified?

What are the requirements for President, and how did Trump not meet them?

In other words - they same reason liberal Presidents choose their justices.

But you -do- trust the judgement of a justice who cannot define "woman".

You do when they have a (D) behind their name.

The justices choose their workload - they take on exactly the number of cases they want to.

Shadow Docket : Motions and orders in the Supreme Court of the United States in cases which have not yet reached final judgment, decision on appeal, and oral argument.
You want to take away the USSCs ability to stay a lower court ruling?

By that you mean at least a 5-4 liberal majority.

Which requires a constitutional amendment

 

all three of those Justices had top credentials
far better than Biden's pick
Kagan had strong academic credentials but had ZERO judicial experience.
Gorsuch was Phi Beta Kappa at Columbia, A Truman Scholar a Marshall Scholar, an honors graduate of HLS, and a Supreme Court Clerk. There is NO evidence his race had anything to do with his selection
Kavanaugh was a top student at Yale, on the Yale Law Journal-again, affirmative action had nothing to do with his top flight academic credentials. he also was a Supreme Court clerk
Barrett was=according to the dean of Notre Dame law-the best student in THIRTY years at that school. her academic achievements had nothing to do with affirmative action

 

He's just upset that his desire for a gun free USA is not going to happen with this current supreme court.

 

The real test comes down the road when a gun-hating supreme court starts dismantling the precedents and states start putting their laws back in place.
Will gun owners tell the state to FO and will the state spend people to make them comply?

 

I think you meant send but in reality spend is rather astute

 

I wrote:

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

You responded

In your hyper partisan opinion.

There is only one conclusion I can draw from your response.

You disagree that a 6/3 court doesn't serve America well.

Otherwise, why claim my opinion is 'hyper partisan'?

You therefore agree that a 6/3 court DOES serve America well.

Now you claim you didn't say that.

You said it indirectly. If you claim my opinion is hyper partisan,
you therefore believe a 6/3 court serves America well.

Sorry, that's the only meaning a reasonable person can draw from your statement. You are therefore denying what you clearly implied.

If that is incorrect, what in holy hell is your point?

 

A lot of judges have the naked qualifications to be on the court, but taht isn't why they are chosen.
They are chosen more for how they rule in past cases, which are in accord with the objectives of the Federalist society.

IN my view, they are not qualified, for the following reasons:

Gorsuch does not belong on the court

https://www.hrc.org/news/gorsuch-proves-why-he-is-wrong-for-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states
Gorsuch also claimed (in words to this effect) that a Justice should not be concerned with the outcome of his rulings.
Excuse me, but the last time I checked, justice is an outcome, and if rulings are not about justice, why do they call them 'justices'? Why is the symbol of Jurisprudence the lady justice, blindfolded, holding the scales of justice? If rulings are not about justice, what hell are they about? It's important to interpret the Constitution correctly, but let's be clear, if you are not concerned for the outcome of your rulings, in the pursuit of textual perfection, when the wording of a text can be interpreted in more than one way, or facts of a case can be applied to the constitution in more than one way (and don't tell me that often this is not the case) this approach can lead to unjust outcomes. Do I believe the spirit of the framers intent regarding the constitution had unjust outcomes in mind? I don't believe that, and I never will. But, sad thing is, Gorsuch doesn't give a damn. It is apparent in the article.

On to Kavanaugh:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...h-supreme-court-intellectual-lightweight.html
It was during Kavanaugh's petty rant about Democrats that it hit me like a ton of bricks that this man is far below the stature and gravitas I would expect of someone applying for a justice of the Supreme Court. He is way too much of a lightweight for the court, as the article demonstrates in excruciating detail.

Ahh, and now Amy Barrett:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/why-amy-coney-barrett-should-not-be-on-the-supreme-court

No friend of justice, that is clear.

The 'requirements' to run for President are minimal, and stated in the constitution.
It's not, therefore, about 'requirements', it's about fitness for the office. Trump is way way way below a level of appropriate fitness for the office. I mean, its' far more blatant and clear now, but it should be clear to any observant human being before the vote was cast in 2016, to wit: (source: https://www.thebulwark.com/100-reasons-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president/ )

• 1985-1994
  Reported $1.17 billion in business losses over the decade. Trump “appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer,” according to the New York Times.
  
  
• 2
  
  May 1, 1989
  Took out $85,000-worth of full-page ads in New York newspapers calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five—whose convictions were later vacated after DNA evidence proved their innocence. Trump never apologized.
  
  
• 3
  
  1990s
  Contrary to his story of being a self-made billionaire, Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real-estate empire, much of it transferred through suspect tax-dodging schemes.
  
  
• 4
  
  1991-2009
  Declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy for his various businesses six times.
  
  
• 5
  
  2005
  Bragged about grabbing women “by the *****” in a conversation with Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush picked up on a hot mic.
  
  
• 6
  
  2011-2016
  Promoted birtherism against President Barack Obama—the false claim that Obama was not born in the United States, that his birth certificate was fraudulent, and that therefore he was constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.
  
  
• 7
  
  2015-2016
  Attacked in sexist and demeaning ways women who raised critical questions about his character. See: Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton.
  
  
• 8
  
  2015-present
  Denies accusations of sexual misconduct, ranging from unwanted kissing to rape, by calling the women “liars” and not “his type.”
  
  
• 9
  
  June 16, 2015
  Announced his presidential campaign by describing America as “a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.” Mexicans coming to America, he said, were “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
  
  
• 10
  
  July 18, 2015
  Said Vietnam POW John McCain is “not a war hero” and “I like people who weren’t captured.”
  
  
• 11
  
  November 22, 2015
  Claimed that “thousands and thousands” of people in New Jersey’s Arab communities cheered on 9/11.
  
  
• 12
  
  2016 campaign season
  Encouraged violence. Said that he’d like to punch a protester “in the face”; that his supporters should “knock the hell” out of protesters—“I promise you, I’ll pay the legal bills”; and that the police should not protect suspects’ heads when loading them into squad cars.
  
  
• 13
  
  May 11, 2016
  Refused to release his tax returns for public inspection after having previously promised to do so. On other occasions, he falsely claimed he could not release them because he was under audit. When, in 2019, Congress subpoenaed Trump’s tax returns, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refused to comply—kicking off cases that went to the Supreme Court.
  
  
• 14
  
  May-June 2016
  Said Judge Gonzalo Curiel is unfit to rule on a lawsuit filed by Trump University students because “he’s a Mexican” (in fact, the judge is an American citizen born in Indiana). Trump would later settle the lawsuit for $25 million.
  
  
• 15
  
  July 27, 2016
  Called on Russia to hack and release Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails.
  
  
• 16
  
  July 30, 2016
  Denigrated the family of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in 2004 while serving in Iraq, after Khan’s father delivered remarks at the Democratic National Convention.
  
  
• 17
  
  July 30, 2016
  Broke with U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine over Russia’s invasion of Crimea, saying: “The people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
  
  
• 18
  
  Fall 2016
  Before Election Day, repeatedly hyped unfounded fears of a “rigged” election. Then, after Election Day, he stated, without any evidence, “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

I repeat:

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, the question's intent was veiled as a trick, for in truth 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, which was his intent. I don't fault her, I do think she should have been better prepared to call the Senator out on that question.

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

Mostly, but since not all Republicans ask disingenuous questions, your comment is partisan and it doesn't mean
I won't accept questioning by republicans, I'm all for bipartisanship. I do find the right to have a disproportionate number
of incompetence compared to the left. I do notice there are more executive branch crimes by republicans, that is indesputable.

No, but the docket is being used more and more on less and less anodyne cases, and this is concerning.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/07/politics/shadow-docket-supreme-court/index.html

CNN: So it’s not just the kind of cases falling into the shadow docket process, but the number as well?

VLADECK: It’s the substance of these cases. It’s the number of them. And it’s the fact that the court is for the first time treating these orders as precedential – meaning that the Supreme Court is expecting lower courts to give these orders effect, not just in the cases in which they’re handed down, but in other cases raising similar issues.

That’s a cause for concern because whatever you think of the merits in these cases, the court’s legitimacy depends upon its ability to offer principled justifications for what it’s doing. I mean just Monday night, Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a speech at the Ronald Reagan library said, “For those of you who are concerned that we’re partisan and that were playing politics, just read our decisions.”

Well, on the shadow docket, there’s nothing to read.

​

[/QUOTE]

By that you mean at least a 5-4 liberal majority.
[/QUOTE]
No, I have a proposal that would end one party dominance, incentivise consensus.

But, it's just a rough draft, subject to fine tuning:


1. Increase to have enough justices to handled the vastly increased number of cases since 9 justices were first installed.
2. To reduce the shadow docket to the bare minimum (or rather, to return it to how it was intended).
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. No, an amendment is not needed, it could be achieved with legislation. (as I understand it)
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 side are inevitable, that such a tie vote on a large court would be rare (the odds of it are greatly diminished),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 duel 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.

See #3 above.

 

That's -your- issue, not mine.

 

No, I meant spend.

 

Including the justices Trump appointed.
Your disagreement with their judicial philosophies to not make them unqualified.

You said qualified, not unfit for office.
You agree Trump meets the constitutional requirements, and is, therefore, qualified.

I repeat:
But you -do- trust the legal judgement of a justice who cannot define "woman".

And thus, your argument rests on your hyper-partisanship.

So you -really- just want the shadow docket to address issues -you- think should be addressed.

Ok... so what level of conservative majority do you believe is "balanced"

I did. In fact, I responded to it directly.
You said:
....and disallow the appointment mechanism to allow one party to dominate...
As the Constitution grants the President plenary power to nominate whomever he wants, and grants the senate plenary power to confirm anyone they want, this requires a constitutional amendment.

 

No. Cite the idea you wish to advance in your own words ChatGPT.

Hell no. FDR had more support, both in the legislature and amongst the populace, than Biden could dream of if he dipped into his son's stash. More than Trump could if he got into Junior's stash. More than slick willie, more than Reagan.
You simply have no frame of reference for the sort of support the man had. And even HE couldn't get it done. It would've taken a simple majority in both houses (which he had) and he couldn't get it done.
As to work load: His stance was they were all of advanced age and needed help with the case load. Lots of things he was trying were novel, and so practically everything ran through scotus.

Again: Advance an idea you wish to cite in your own words. I don't need to read someone else's opinion, I want yours.
The only thing you should be linking to are facts or court decisions where quoting the entire case is not allowed per forum rules.

A 6/3 court serves just fine.

 

When you're trying to offer detailed and nuanced legal analysis but haven't read the case yourself, you aren't checking your facts.

I've pointed out why you're wrong, and you've decided to concentrate on ChatGPT having a warning label rather than addressing the problem with the opinion you farmed out to a nascent AI known to make **** up from whole cloth. Its like me pointing out you spilled hot coffee and burned yourself, and you say its fine they have a warning label. Quite silly.

Again: Its barred for use in legal analysis for good reason. It tends to **** **** up even if you tell it not to. You have to craft the prompt, let it dig, then read what it wrote and then vet what it wrote by reading all the citations. You have to do that when you do the research yourself. Its not anywhere near usable for something like this yet. Wait a decade and reassess.
As to 'usual tools lawyers use' what tools, precisely, are those?

 

Well, in 2.367 seconds I found these:
https://www.clio.com/blog/best-free-legal-research-tools/
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/definitive-guide-to-best-legal-research-databases

So, you tell me? Are any of those of use for a lawyer?

In the meantime:

1. I don't 'concentrate' on Chat, it's one tool among others I use for research
2. I (do my best to..) make sure claims of fact are sourced, as I would any other claim, and if none are offered by me, I'm always willing to on request. If not, I'll present it as an opinion, or do my best to do that. No one is perfect in this world.
3. I find that chat is right much more often than it is wrong, and it does have a disclaimer on the opening pages to factcheck data points offered, and any lawyer using it without checking facts, as the app has so instructed, is as fool.
4. This is a debate forum, if someone presents something with which you disagree, just challenge it, that's why we are here, right? I'm not seeing a problem.

so, in essence, all you really telling me is that lawyer is a fool.

 

Those are search engines that bring up keywords dude. You still have to READ THE ****ING CASE YOURSELF.

Example: I have access to both Westlaw and Lexisnexis. Why? Because they have the contents of several dozen law libraries scanned in and accessible by database search.
I look for key words, and it brings me things up. I can see how often the key word is used in the document, and I get a 'head note' IE a quick and VERY BROAD description of the case. I can see what state or circuit its in, I can see what judge made the decision. I can search by judge, to find for example that the judge I'm before handled this same matter before and will likely decide the same way.
However: Most any law library near a major metro also 1) has all this information in book form with indexes you can use (and lawyers are taught to use in law school. UGH going through the stacks is a chore) 2) also has a computer lab and access to lexis and westlaw for free with paper printing fees you can avoid by bringing a thumb drive to DL the PDFs with. These aren't lawyer only tools, anyone can go to a law library. And ALL law libraries have the physical indexes and all the reporters of the cases.

But ALL of that means I have to read it MYSELF. Nothing summarizes it up for me such that I can cite that without reading the whole case and analyzing it. Hell, cases cite to other cases, so often you need to at least check the history on those cases (were they overturned later? etc). The head notes? Are written by real live lawyers who couldn't get a job any other way, not an AI which makes **** up. The signals that go in for appellate history? Also written by those same lawyers who couldn't get any other job and not something you want to blindly rely on. You must READ IT ALL YOURSELF.
THAT is why litigation is so ****ing expensive: Legal research and analyzing discovery take up so many ****ing man hours, can't be farmed out except to other lawyers or at least law students or certified paralegals (which you charge at merely $75 an hour instead of $250) and there is a ****ing ton of it to shovel through.

1) You use chat often, you've done it in several conversations just recently.
2) You don't do a great job of it, and you don't take correction when someone points it out. You just say 'but muh chat GPT'
3) And its wrong here on its gross misunderstanding of a nuanced legal point with great ramifications to the rule.
4) I did, and I continue to do so. You inquire why I question you or denigrate your opinion as unreasonable.... then say "its a debate forum in the same breath. Its silly.

No, in essence all I'm really telling you is that anyone who uses Chat GPT for legal analysis is a fool.

 

Did I ever imply you didn't? I should think that is a no brainer.

Dude

You ought to know that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Consider the thousands of posts I've made since AI was offered to the public and do a thorough analysis, if you are going to make such a claim. But, whether it's true or not, BFD.

Bing AI is a search engine CHAT, and it sources every data point offered, it's output is hotlinked an annotated far more than most folks on this forum are willing to back up their arguments. So, it's no different than using a search engine and supplementing an argument with sources.

But, your mischaracterization is noted.

You don't do a great job of presenting your arguments, either, and for a lawyer, that's even worse of a critique.

The ONLY time I don't take ownership of BING's output is when I don't have time to check the facts, so I put it in quotes and explain where the information came from. If you disagree, just dispute it.

Either, way, so?

We are anonymous, If you disagree with anything in any rebuttal, just dispute it.

Rule? What rule?

You're complaint is silly.

I would agree with that, as I've explained in prior comments.

 

When did you say you didn't read them yourself? You illustrated it well in this thread, and in your continuing descriptions of how you might use it IE you accept the AI annotation instead of READING THE ****ING THING YOURSELF.
Again: I literally pointed out a flaw in one of your farmed out arguments and we've been arguing the merits of ChatGPT ever since because you cannot accept your farmed out argument was ****ed up in an important, nuanced fashion.
I have no need to review your every post, that's not how logic works. I point out your argument was wrong, and its WHY chatGPT is a bad tool for legal analysis. I offered several real world illustrations of this, including addressing the very important distinction that chatGPT missed when you farmed out to it. You continue to claim those are irrelevant. Its asinine.

Having links is great: But only if you read them and they actually support your argument. Literally part of legal research is reading a case which cites to another case, which cites to another case, and drilling down to realize that each cite from the original on down is incorrect and not something you can use. All still reported though, all still pops up in a search.

You are literally not taking responsibility for the current error you've farmed out we've been talking about for days now. Please seek help.
Further: I explained it well, you refuse to accept it. There is a difference.
Still further: You're getting the drive by when I have time and feel like it. This is not paid work, ergo I don't church it up the way I would otherwise.

Again: I already did, in this thread, when you offered ChatGPT legal analysis. I, again, already explained what was ****ed up about its interpretation. Scroll up.

YOUR.

You call yourself a fool for using ChatGPT for legal analysis? Then why are you arguing with me?

 

''

No, because I'm not a lawyer in a court room. here, it doesn't ****ing matter, now does it? Nope. Hard to be foolish when it doesn't matter, and it's amusing that apparently that point is lost on you, such that you had to toss me an ad hom. Remind me to never hire you.

I just told you, I will put CHAT's output in quotes explaining that it came from chat WHEN...................

I don't have time to read the ****ing thing myself or check it's veracity.

If you disagree, just debate it. Quit ad homming and engaging in 'kill-the-messenger' pseudo debate tricks.

I can only analyze something according to my sensibilities and publicly available facts, not regarding legal doctrine and crap you find on bar exams, that's not my field.

Lawyers aren't always right, just ask Chesebro and Eastman, hell, ask Nixon's ghost, he went to Duke.

 

If you want to have a chance at analyzing the case correctly, you'll need to read it yourself.

If you prefer to not understand, farm it out to something worse than cliffnotes written by someone who could barely pass the bar, get that pointed out to you, grin, bear it.

^ These are your choices. You have said you will not do the former, ergo you've chosen the latter.
If you prefer it not: Physician, heal thyself.

You don't have the time to read a court case you've been discussing for days online? You realize you could've read it in the time you used posting here about it with an incorrect interpretation, or complaining that ChatGPT should work when it doesn't? Again: Physician, HEAL THYSELF.

I DID debate it, you refused to take correction and deflected to ChatGPT being a good thing. Pointing out a flaw in your farmed out interpretation is a fair play amigo, not a trick.

If you can read, you can understand a court case. Things are explained. Those things which aren't? Have black letter definitions you are referred to.
What you mean to say is, you don't care to try because you prefer to depend on a farm out of an explanation of an idea to doing the actual spade work of understanding and explaining the idea yourself. You prefer to sit around jaw jacking while someone else digs the hole. You are here speaking about something you admit you have not read, and do not think yourself capable of understanding. Does that not tell you anything about the usefulness of your opinion on this particular subject?
Does that not, perhaps, encourage you to listen rather than speak? Perhaps to read it first and see if you don't surprise yourself?

PS: You shouldn't feel bad that you've been caught farming out your opinion to something that missed the forest for the trees. 1Ls do it regularly, and its a fine tradition amongst the legal fraternity to ruthlessly humiliate anyone caught doing so pour les encourager les autres.
My favorite prof used to put people on the spot to present, "The Paperchase" style. No text or notes allowed, just "give me the case Counsel". People who used other people's outlines etc, inevitably missed important details and he'd say "Well you LOOKED at it, but you didn't READ it".

 

By that you mean at least a 5-4 liberal majority.
[/QUOTE]
No, I have a proposal that would end one party dominance, incentivise consensus.

But, it's just a rough draft, subject to fine tuning:


1. Increase to have enough justices to handled the vastly increased number of cases since 9 justices were first installed.
2. To reduce the shadow docket to the bare minimum (or rather, to return it to how it was intended).
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. No, an amendment is not needed, it could be achieved with legislation. (as I understand it)
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 side are inevitable, that such a tie vote on a large court would be rare (the odds of it are greatly diminished),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 duel 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.


See #3 above.[/QUOTE]
translation-those three justices voted the correct way concerning gun issues and you hate them. All three are eminently more qualified than the quota pick of Biden. Any justice who claims the second amendment does not recognize an individual right is clearly incompetent to sit on the court

 

Criminals hacking registration lists? Why? Some newspaper cilll publish a list for them.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses#
registration has always been the goal so political opposition can be identified and targeted; I wouldn’t be surprised if registration would require gun owners to wear gold stars to identify them.
.

 

And so, you have no idea whatsoever if it actually supports whatever claim you happen to make.

 

translation-those three justices voted the correct way concerning gun issues and you hate them. All three are eminently more qualified than the quota pick of Biden. Any justice who claims the second amendment does not recognize an individual right is clearly incompetent to sit on the court[/QUOTE]
His complaint with Gorsuch tells you everything you need to know: Gorsuch says he looks at what the law requires, not what the outcome will be. Why? Because the outcome isn't what determines the law, the law determines the outcome. He puts the horse before the cart, and that bothers many.

 

Why? Because buying in bulk of just about anything means lower per unit pricing. Basic economics. Bulk 9mm and 5.56 is a great buy right now.

 

Described in this book.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/998056.Death_by_Government

Ever notice how certain people from down under are never concerned about what goes on in countries like North Korea, etc. Bet those North Koreans would have appreciated a 2nd Ammendment.