Settled law and stare decisis

jimmymccready said:
Abatis can flap his gums, but that meaneth nothing. We will wait for SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

You're waiting for something that has already happened.

I'm telling you what SCOTUS has said.

Do you have secret access to an alternate set of SCOTUS decisions that state something different from what I have quoted?

Do you have an alternate interpretation from mine, of what the Court has said in Heller and McDonald? (and we haven't even touched on Cruikshank, Presser and barely scratched the surface of Miller and I have always liked Lewis too simply because the Court lists all kinds of actions that a felon can take to restore his right to arms but they never, not even one mention he would need to join a militia . . . Hmmmm . . . )
 
I have everything, Abatis, and you are dependent on SCOTUS just like the rest of us.

You don't understand Heller is the point here, and who cares if you like it or not.
 
jimmymccready said:
I have everything, Abatis,
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you have shown nothing. All I have to judge your knowledge and understanding are the words you post and that's been lacking.

jimmymccready said:
and you are dependent on SCOTUS just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

My entire argument has been quoting SCOTUS and stating their authority to decide the law; is there any reason you think I am ignoring the Court or dismissing their significance?

jimmymccready said:
You don't understand Heller is the point here, and who cares if you like it or not.
Click to expand...

I enjoy / like reasoned, supported debate; that's why I'm here.

I have posted plenty of my own analysis for you to directly rebut and show me my errors.

I make definitive statements in the hope that someone will respond with on-point challenges to my positions and statements.

What I dislike is guys like you who herald your scholarship and deep understanding but then renege and slink away when challenged.

I accept that I can not control your deficiency in intellectual integrity, I can only point it out and condemn it.
 
jimmymccready said:
As long as Abatis has admitted the right of SCOTUS to rule on Heller, the discussion is over.
Click to expand...

Anyone who would say that a structure of government created by the Constitution, has "rights", has for all intents and purposes eliminated themselves from being considered a competent voice to discuss the topic.

Pure idiocy . . .
 
Abatis said:
Anyone who would say that a structure of government created by the Constitution, has "rights", has for all intents and purposes eliminated themselves from being considered a competent voice to discuss the topic. Pure idiocy . . .
Click to expand...
You are stupid, which has little to do with intellect but more with being unable to learn new things that clash with your world view.

Since the SCOTUS has recognized corporations as having rights, only a matter of time before such recognition will be given to unions and governments. You really emote instead of think.

:chuckle:
 
Pmp=" .....once upon a time a super majority thought killing your unborn children was a bad thing......."

My recollection from reading Roe, which in some part contain a survey of history of abortion, this statement is untrue.
The criminalization of abortion was recent and for vast swaths of history it was, generally speaking allowed. That was
some of the rationale supporting the decision to the extent it prohibits states from burdening the right to privacy prior to viability.
It's been years since I read it, however.
 
jimmymccready said:
You are stupid, which has little to do with intellect but more with being unable to learn new things that clash with your world view.

Since the SCOTUS has recognized corporations as having rights, only a matter of time before such recognition will be given to unions and governments. You really emote instead of think.

:chuckle:
Click to expand...

I'm stupid for having not learned and accepted something that you imagine will happen in the future?
 
People are stupid because they refuse to think outside of their narrowly conceived little world of thoughts, which is fine.

People overwhelmingly are like that.
 
Last edited:
jimmymccready said:
You are stupid, which has little to do with intellect but more with being unable to learn new things that clash with your world view.

Since the SCOTUS has recognized corporations as having rights, only a matter of time before such recognition will be given to unions and governments. You really emote instead of think.

:chuckle:
Click to expand...

I think it's bizarre to imbue a corporation with rights which in my estimation depend for their existence of biology. cf the right of a corporation to sue and be sued,
that right is not biological in origin. It's origin is to be able to protect the individual investor from liability exceeding his/her investment and is a creature of statute.
You can't have people organizing as a corporation and also insist the corporation has no exposure in addition to the investors. So that is the reason the statutes
of every stat'es corporation code state that a corporation is a natural person by construction of its laws. But in the case of say, free speech, that is a right organic
to a natural person and can be distinguished. Therefore I think it is borderline absurd to claim the corporation qua corporation has that particular right, and therefore
the right to contribute unlimited sums to campaigns secretively or otherwise. The individuals that compose the corporation already have that right to speech,
and its at least dbl dipping to confer it again if they line up in a group or create 1000 LLCs and each one can free their respective speech as a corp form by
providing money to campaigns.

Its basically an absurdity and I expect that it will be overruled once sensible apolitical minds are seated on scotus.
 
jimmymccready said:
People are stupid because they refuse to think outside of their narrowly conceived little world of thoughts, which is fine.

People overwhelmingly are like that.
Click to expand...

So I was flapping my gums when you incorrectly believed I wasn't showing SCOTUS the proper respect as arbiter and now I'm stupid for not thinking outside the box and corrupting the most fundamental terminology, imbuing SCOTUS with the absurd notion that they have "rights".

And you want me to believe you understand anything about the law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top