"...that expanded gun rights by finding the Second Amendment generally gives people the right to carry firearms."
Amazing how the #SCOTUS continues to erase the predicate clause of the #SecondAmendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
How many of these people are members of any "well regulated #Militia"?
Remember #Originalism and #Textualism and #OriginalIntent all that?
Utterly meaningless when it gets in the way of #MAGA #AmmoSexuals and their auto-erotic gun fantasies
"...the #legal doctrine that suggests #courts should follow #legal #precedent or prior decisions"
So all that #Constitutional "#Originalism" and "#Textualism" goes out the window
Been waiting for one of the Treasonous Six to finally admit this
"who previously asked for the hearing to be postponed until after the election that Trump maintained he would win. After making that request, the judge said Trump could NOT now credibly say that winning the election makes him #immune from #sentencing."
The problem here is that this is exactly how and why the current #SCOTUS was constructed by #LeonardLeo and the #FederalistSociety
Points of law, the entire logic of existing law, are meaningless
The Supreme Court of the United States exists only to do what is needed to advance the far-right agenda
All references to #Textualism and #Originalism and the meaning of the law as it exists are a fraud
Not that any of that matters
⬆️ @GreenFire
>> I could support #MakeAmericaGreatAgain if all that it entails is that only flintlock muskets are allowed again.
No #MAGA #justice will ever agree with you on THAT kind of #originalism and #textualism on the #SecondAmendment, nor on the "well-regulated militia" part, which I want to add to your point.
The mask is off
All that #Textualism and #Originalism and high-minded-sounding #OriginalIntent schtick was a premeditated #Federalist / #GOP lie
The Constitution is now open to interpretation that is entirely fluid, situational, and expedient
Any position taken by the #Republican party is subject to alteration or erasure as needed, as situations change
It's far right #SCOTUS #ActivistJudges all the way down from here on out
@[email protected] I'm glad someone has written about this. I haven't read the book, but I'll add to my list of possibles. About originalism, my own feeling is this: In the most literal interpretation, originalism, at least as practiced, would be perfected if the amendment process were nullified and courts were never allowed to set precedent. That's what originalism seems to be saying. And yet that can't be. The founders knew they were not doing it all right. They gave us a living system, one capable of responding to changing needs, so that society didn't outgrow itself. This was a great insight and perhaps the most important of the original thoughts, though not part of originalism. A literal take on originalism would unroll women's right to a vote or the right of African Americans to be 100% people at all. That's preposterous in any sane modern understanding and to assert that this is the proper interpretation of law now, especially after having fought the Civil War over this, is improper. More generally, originalism fights the ability to patch holes in the system. As a computer person, I see it precisely the same as an insistence that the only true version of a piece of software is version 1.0, the originally released code. To me, the amendment process of the Constitution is the service agreement, the ability to stay up to date with fighting later-discovered vulnerabilities. No one would want to use a piece of software that is not protected in this way. Our government, in my mind, is no different. The originalists are basically just hackers bent on breaking in and controlling the system, and their tool is to convince people that maintenance is bad and to use Jedi mind tricks to convince people to allow them to unroll security fixes. Again, just preposterous. This relates as well to Stare Decisis. I'm busy writing a blog post on that today, so I'll try to link it here if I finish it, but the importance of stare decisis and the utter violation of civil society that SCOTUS is presently engaged in by tearing it to shreds is something I think the populace does not generally understand. In brief, and I'll try to write this better in the blog, stare decisis is not just an old decision that SCOTUS is entitled to label as "wrongly decided". It is part of a societal conversation that says "this will be the default unless Congress acts". But over time, through inaction, it becomes law because the inaction says loudly "no action was needed, the public is doing fine". This is very critical to society because we do not need a bunch of laws that just say "Yeah, what SCOTUS said." The way we say that is to not change the decision. So when SCOTUS overrides a long-standing thing, they are not just saying "this was decided wrong" but also "the fact that society has seen the decision and allowed it to stand is of no importance to us". That is as undemocratic as overturning actual legislation. It is the ultimate in adverse and inappropriate judicial action. They see it as "this was and is in our realm" but the proper way to see it is as a conversational offering to say "tell us we're wrong", and they don't interpret the silence as having involved the other branches. It is not now in their realm. So I agree originalism is a trap, though I'd be fascinated, if I can find the time, to read someone else's analysis of it, which probably hits other things I haven't thought of. By the way, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think only lawyers need opine. This is about what We The People want our world to be, and every one of us is equally entitled to opine on that, notwithstanding what the Supreme Court says. Indeed, the Supreme Court and all government derives legitimacy from the consent of the governed, but right now they are actively engaged in making sure the public has no ability to give consent. In effect, they are staging a coup-by-process. So while legal scholars may opine differently than I have, I stand by my right to have an equal position as just one voice of many in our democratic society. The strength of my words should be in the strength of my argument, not the strength of my credential. #law #SCOTUS #originalism #democracy #StareDecisis #software #BugFixes #maintenance #exploits #hackers #society #freedom #consensus
The Conservatives Justices Part of SCOTUS are Sophomoric Idiots
Yep, we’re fucked.
Photo by Claire Anderson on UnsplashI chose my words carefully with that title. Their “reasoning” for the decision granting absolute powers to presidents is equivalent to the work of a confused college sophomore. I knew right away that this decision couldn’t be good for us, but I decided to hold my tongue for a while.
I have now listened to the Serious Trouble podcast, by defense attorney Ken White:
https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/donald-trump-wins-the-immunity-idol
And to LegalEagle’s take on the matter:
https://youtu.be/MXQ43yyJvgs?si=5UFYjvQlvXlPnHwt
We’re fucked indeed.
I invite you to listen to both. I knew the decision was a bad one, but I had no grasped just how sophomoric it is. So sophomoric that I now have no qualms saying that the conservative majority is in the pocket of the GOP and Trump. There is no other plausible explanation for such a turd of an opinion.
Your Autistic Life is supported by readers like you. Use one of the links below to support my writing! Thank you.
Join Us Bonfire MerchThese so-called “textualists” are in fact cherry-pickers. They assert that the Constitution does not say anything about presidential immunity. This is true, on its face, but also misleading. The framers of the constitutions did bestow immunity explicitly elsewhere in the Speech or Debate Clause of the constitution. If they remained silent about the president, that’s because they did not want to give the president immunity.
This is textual analysis 101. To insist otherwise is to ignore the very text of the Constitution and intellectually dishonest. I’ve done textual analysis as part of my master’s and my Ph.D. This type of shitty logic would not be tolerated there, but it is tolerated among the conservative justices, because it is a means to an end.
The court’s decision is utterly vague about how the lower courts should interpret any of it. If I were a lower court judge, I’d play dumb with the lack of guidelines that SCOTUS has provided, and give a ruling that will most likely be appealed to SCOTUS. Let them deal with the bloody mess they created.
This is sophomoric.
#AutisticWriters #CherryPicking #idiots #SCOTUS #sophomoric #textualism #USLaw #YourAutisticLife
Just going to drop my pinned-post boilerplate from yesterday into this:
The #SupremeCourt is working exactly as #LeonardLeo and the #FederalistSociety intended
The mask is off
All that #Textualism and #Originalism and high-minded-sounding #OriginalIntent schtick was a premeditated #Federalist / #GOP lie
#SCOTUS is now situational, relative, and expedient in one direction only
It's far right SCOTUS #ActivistJudges all the way down from here on out
Just going to drop my pinned-post boilerplate from yesterday into this:
The #SupremeCourt is working exactly as #LeonardLeo and the #FederalistSociety intended
The mask is off
All that #Textualism and #Originalism and high-minded-sounding #OriginalIntent schtick was a premeditated #Federalist / #GOP lie
#SCOTUS is now situational, relative, and expedient in one direction only
It's far right SCOTUS #ActivistJudges all the way down from here on out
FinchHaven sfba
FinchHaven infosec
Mike Switzer
Ramesh #NotGoingBack
FeralRobots
yourautisticlife