Interpreting the 2A

[FrankenCub]

So if you are saying the 2nd admendment is no different than the first then you are saying there can be restrictions on it because there are restrictions on the 1st.

Again, the restrictions on the 1st are about an act. Think of the printing press as the shotgun of the 2nd, the internet is the M4 of the 2nd. I'll give you your 1st argument when the ban the internet. Never happen. The two are not treated equally.
If I printed nudes of my wife for my own use it's no harm no foul. Child porn there is a victim, completely different story.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Again, the restrictions on the 1st are about an act. Think of the printing press as the shotgun of the 2nd, the internet is the M4 of the 2nd. I'll give you your 1st argument when the ban the internet. Never happen. The two are not treated equally.
If I printed nudes of my wife for my own use it's no harm no foul. Child porn there is a victim, completely different story.

But as per the first Amendment you should be able to post and talk about both whether it's disgusting or not.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But anyway back to the Second Amendment. According to you Truebeliever, a state it's not held to the Bill of Rights. So any state can infringe on that right. Since people don't want to be bothered with fixed magazines, they get lever actions. That becomes common as per your Judge Scalia. That's not what the founding fathers envisioned.

 

[FrankenCub]

But as per the first Amendment you should be able to post and talk about both whether it's disgusting or not.

I'm a bit hesitant to agree allowing something like that purely due to the victim being involved in something so vile, but, it sure would make prosecuting those sick bastards much easier.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'm a bit hesitant to agree allowing something like that purely due to the victim being involved in something so vile, but, it sure would make prosecuting those sick bastards much easier.

You can't put emotions into it. Posting or having a video of a child being brutally tortured to inches of his life is just as sick and there's a victim involved too. Yet it's totally legal to have and possess and post.

The act in itself should be illegal just like anything else but not talking about it or having videos of it whether we like it or not.

When you start putting limitations on things bad things happen.

 

[FrankenCub]

But anyway back to the Second Amendment. According to you Truebeliever, a state it's not held to the Bill of Rights. So any state can infringe on that right. Since people don't want to be bothered with fixed magazines, they get lever actions. That becomes common as per your Judge Scalia. That's not what the founding fathers envisioned.

Which this fits right in to this part of the conversation, NY has always thumbed it's collective nose at the BOR as our founders set forth...
https://www.nycourts.gov/history/le...ents/Publications_New-York-Bill-Of-Rights.pdf

 

[Truebeliever]

I disagree with that. The act of child porn in itself should be illegal. But as per the Constitution you should be allowed to post it. Most won't because child porn is disgusting and immoral. But it's no worse than torturing a kid with battery acid. That's illegal too and it's no worse than child porn.

You can't pick and choose on what you're okay with. A right is a right whether bad or good.

It actually is. Much worse. Less social stigma with torture and it’s usually torture with it.

You don’t want to see it . Trust me. If you have, you would know.

And I think you have backed your self into this corner.

Go see the movie “Inherit the wind” with Spencer Tracy . I think that just happened.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It actually is. Much worse. Less social stigma.

You don’t want to see it . Trust me. If you have, you would know.

And I think you have backed your self into this corner.

Go see the movie “Inherit the wind” with Spencer Tracy . I think that just happened.

I haven't backed myself into anywhere. I know what the Constitution says. I'm just not a hypocrite. I don't pick and choose what should be protected or not.

 

[Truebeliever]

I haven't backed myself into anywhere. I know what the Constitution says. I'm just not a hypocrite. I don't pick and choose what should be protected or not.

Do you know the movie?

If you don’t watch it.

I’m better looking than Tracy.


And don’t worry, a synopses of it doesn’t do it justice.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Do you know the movie?

If you don’t watch it.

I’m better looking than Tracy

It isn't going to change my mind into being a hypocrite. Like I said. Those protections are there for a reason. Just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean I'll make an exception for it. When you do that, you get to the point that we are in now and later they'll quote that exception that was allowed as being kosher to take away other rights.

No thank you.

 

[Truebeliever]

Go see the movie . The last twenty minutes.

It’s okay to admit, that they were restrictions on the Bill of rights and are recognized by the courts, the public , and founders. What those restrictions are have been debated since the beginning.

The questions is not if they can be restrictions but what they can be.

Here is the scene I want you to see.

It’s a case where a teacher is on trial where it was illegal to reach against the Bible with Darwinism. In the real life case Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant ( former presidential candidate) take on the case. Spencer Tracy ( tDrummond who is based on Darrow) is not allowed to bring anyvwitinesss until he calls an expert on the Bible ( who happens to be the prosecutor)


Spoiler since the clip begins late and ends too soon . Tracy loses the case but won the war.

 

[holdover]

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: inalienable

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More
   untransferable, nontransferable, nonnegotiable;
   indefeasible
   inalienable
   adjective incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, quod abalienari non potest, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable
   Associated concepts: inalienable lands, inalienable rights

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." 5th amendment

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th amendment.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

 

[prambo]

I've read and digested a lot of this thread - the discussion has been excellent, with a lot of points and subtleties I've never considered before.

All I would add, and IMHO applies to both the 1st and 2nd amendments, is personal responsibility for one's actions.

In colonial times personal responsibility was implicit in most things. In our failing fUSA, it it close to extinct.

For example, you can say anything you want, including yelling "Fire" in a theater when there is none, as long as you accept all responsibility for any damage or injuries. If you can't, STFU.

As far as posting child porn, although not being the "producer", by posting it or viewing it, IMHO doing such is essentially "aiding and abetting" the production of such filth, and the irreparable damage done to the children. If deviants didn't want to "view" this stuff, there would be no market.

It's the same as firearms - you're resonsible for all damage and injuries resulting from such use.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Truebeliever]

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: inalienable

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More
   untransferable, nontransferable, nonnegotiable;
   indefeasible
   inalienable
   adjective incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, quod abalienari non potest, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable
   Associated concepts: inalienable lands, inalienable rights

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." 5th amendment

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th amendment.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The 14 th was what brought in incorporation of the other admendments to the states and helped cause this court interpretation thing because states were meant or left to regulate other activities that the feds weren’t.

Also the stretching of the commerce clause to points that I doubt the founders thought of. Good and Bad.

But it is the SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution which is the binding one.

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
Alexander Hamilton from the federalist papers.

But Jefferson wrote this:

“You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps ... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves“

This is something they struggled with back then as well.

 

[holdover]

What Jefferson wrote is exactly what will is arguing. and even Hamilton is saying that if there is a conflict of law vs constitution that the constitution be the default.

If the supreme court finds that only single shot weapons are required for self defense to whom do we turn?

Technically, the people are still armed and therefore not a breech of the constitution.

Limiting rights is where the danger begins, it opens doors to all kinds of possible oppression. who gets the rights and who doesn't is dependent upon judges, and not the constitution.

 

[holdover]

During the past 60 years, many federal judges (followed closely by their state counterparts) have gradually strayed from the constitutional role of interpreting the law – providing “judgment,” to use Hamilton’s word – to actively legislating from the bench, especially in controversial areas of social policy. In other words, activist judges at the federal and state level have abandoned the Founders’ understanding of the constitutionally limited judicial function and have usurped the legislative function (without admitting it, of course) in order to impose a radically liberal vision for America. That vision includes such things as creating previously unknown constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example.

Since federal judges are appointed for life, their lack of accountability to the democratic will of the people makes such judicial activism especially dangerous. Hamilton argued in Federalist #78 that the Constitution’s “good behavior” qualification on judges’ lifetime appointments would suffice to keep them in line, but in practice it has not been used to rein in activist judges. It is ironic that the Founders proposed lifetime appointments for federal judges because they most feared overreaching by the legislative branch, while considering the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch.

Activist Judges and the “Living” Constitution
Judges who legislate from the bench, however, never admit that their actions violate the judicial function. In order to justify their judicial activism, judges (and the constitutional law professors responsible for training them) have employed the “living Constitution” model of constitutional interpretation. This model argues that our Constitution needs to be interpreted in light of evolving values and societal developments.

They argue that the Founders would never have desired or created a rigid, inflexible document wedded to a late-eighteenth century understanding of its provisions and the societal norms undergirding them. However, that argument ignores both the general purpose of the Constitution as a foundational governing document as well as the vehicle for change contained in the document. Justice Scalia is fond of saying that the Constitution is not a living, breathing organism, but rather a legal document that says some things and doesn’t say other things.

The answer to the question of adaptability of our Constitution is found in the amendment process, an intentionally difficult procedure that requires wide public support and approval for such a change. That built-in difficulty is meant to keep the Constitution’s foundational principles from being changed at the whim of a minority, yet responsive to the will of the majority.

For judges to effectively bypass that procedure by creating new constitutional “rights” out of whole cloth is at once unconstitutional and anti-democratic. A “living Constitution” philosophy is nothing less than an excuse for activist judges to impose their personal preferences upon an unwilling citizenry in the name of “evolving standards,” which they alone are entitled to discern.

Judicial Philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution

 

[holdover]

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson

“A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.” – John Adams

 

[Truebeliever]

During the past 60 years, many federal judges (followed closely by their state counterparts) have gradually strayed from the constitutional role of interpreting the law – providing “judgment,” to use Hamilton’s word – to actively legislating from the bench, especially in controversial areas of social policy. In other words, activist judges at the federal and state level have abandoned the Founders’ understanding of the constitutionally limited judicial function and have usurped the legislative function (without admitting it, of course) in order to impose a radically liberal vision for America. That vision includes such things as creating previously unknown constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example.

Since federal judges are appointed for life, their lack of accountability to the democratic will of the people makes such judicial activism especially dangerous. Hamilton argued in Federalist #78 that the Constitution’s “good behavior” qualification on judges’ lifetime appointments would suffice to keep them in line, but in practice it has not been used to rein in activist judges. It is ironic that the Founders proposed lifetime appointments for federal judges because they most feared overreaching by the legislative branch, while considering the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch.

Activist Judges and the “Living” Constitution
Judges who legislate from the bench, however, never admit that their actions violate the judicial function. In order to justify their judicial activism, judges (and the constitutional law professors responsible for training them) have employed the “living Constitution” model of constitutional interpretation. This model argues that our Constitution needs to be interpreted in light of evolving values and societal developments.

They argue that the Founders would never have desired or created a rigid, inflexible document wedded to a late-eighteenth century understanding of its provisions and the societal norms undergirding them. However, that argument ignores both the general purpose of the Constitution as a foundational governing document as well as the vehicle for change contained in the document. Justice Scalia is fond of saying that the Constitution is not a living, breathing organism, but rather a legal document that says some things and doesn’t say other things.

The answer to the question of adaptability of our Constitution is found in the amendment process, an intentionally difficult procedure that requires wide public support and approval for such a change. That built-in difficulty is meant to keep the Constitution’s foundational principles from being changed at the whim of a minority, yet responsive to the will of the majority.

For judges to effectively bypass that procedure by creating new constitutional “rights” out of whole cloth is at once unconstitutional and anti-democratic. A “living Constitution” philosophy is nothing less than an excuse for activist judges to impose their personal preferences upon an unwilling citizenry in the name of “evolving standards,” which they alone are entitled to discern.

Judicial Philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution

Yes, the living constitution. It’s good and bad.

It allows the freedom of the press to apply to internet and television. Free speech to actions such as shooting a target of Osma bin Liden when it was against a law to shoot human shaped targets.

So , it has a point.

Again, the right to privacy is from the “ living constitution “

But a textualist like Scalia would have ruled similar to that but kept the original intent in intact.

 

[Truebeliever]

What Jefferson wrote is exactly what will is arguing. and even Hamilton is saying that if there is a conflict of law vs constitution that the constitution be the default.

If the supreme court finds that only single shot weapons are required for self defense to whom do we turn?

Technically, the people are still armed and therefore not a breech of the constitution.

Limiting rights is where the danger begins, it opens doors to all kinds of possible oppression. who gets the rights and who doesn't is dependent upon judges, and not the constitution.

Again, saying restrictions are constitutional is different than saying which restrictions are constitutional.

Making a limit on any right has perils as well as not having any limits. These limits need to be carefully weighed.

The right of free speech vs the right to prevent someone from threatening you.

In the Heller case,

Scalia went with a common use standard. It’s objectively proven despite some judges not recognizing Heller.
It was a standard that would allow new weapons if not banned before it became common. A lethal laser gun would be legal now in NYS and should be protected if they were common before a law was made. It allowed for breathing room, then showed how handguns and semi auto was protected.

And to those who don’t think Scalia didn’t go far enough, remember he had to convince 4 other justices to vote with him . The “absolute “ wasn’t going to get those 4 others on board.

 

[nortatoga]

 

[Marine Cpl]

And to those who don’t think Scalia didn’t go far enough, remember he had to convince 4 other justices to vote with him . The “absolute “ wasn’t going to get those 4 others on board.

And that's a real problem now isn't it? Talk about impartial judges.

Now you know why I call them corrupt, impartial judges. Scotus is a sham.

 

[Truebeliever]

And that's a real problem now isn't it? Talk about impartial judges.

Now you know why I call them corrupt, impartial judges. Scotus is a sham.

That is not corruption or not being impartial. They honestly interrupted the 2nd ( the five who voted correctly) and believed that they should be limitations as all rights in the constitution are.

It doesn’t mean corruption. Scalia needed to build concensus as to what it was. That’s not corruption. Corruption would have said there is no individual right. It would have just taken one less justice to vote correctly and the second admendment would have been what anti gun people say it was andvwe would have had to count on just political power to own guns, and our self defense rights would have been more limited

Scalia saved our rights. And his common use if they would properly enforce it on the lower courts would protect full magazine capacity and semi auto rifles with those outlawed features. It would save semi auto pistol ownership and given protection against the gun storage laws. And perphaps ammo sales.

If Heller was properly enforced SAFE and NJ ammo and magazine restrictions would be gone.

So stop calling the man who would have saved us , corrupt because you disagree with him. Heller is the reason SAFE didn’t ban semi auto all together.

 

[Marine Cpl]

That is not corruption or not being impartial. They honestly interrupted the 2nd ( the five who voted correctly) and believed that they should be limitations as all rights in the constitution are.

It doesn’t mean corruption. Scalia needed to build concensus as to what it was. That’s not corruption. Corruption would have said there is no individual right. It would have just taken one less justice to vote correctly and the second admendment would have been what anti gun people say it was andvwe would have had to count on just political power to own guns, and our self defense rights would have been more limited

Scalia saved our rights. And his common use if they would properly enforce it on the lower courts would protect full magazine capacity and semi auto rifles with those outlawed features. It would save semi auto pistol ownership and given protection against the gun storage laws. And perphaps ammo sales.

If Heller was properly enforced SAFE and NJ ammo and magazine restrictions would be gone.

So stop calling the man who would have saved us , corrupt because you disagree with him. Heller is the reason SAFE didn’t ban semi auto all together.

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. At this point it isn't worth debating anymore. At least for me.

A Supreme Court Judge isn't supposed to try to make it easier to sell for the liberal judges to pass it. A Supreme Court Justice isn't supposed to add conjecture that isn't written in the Bill of Rights itself. A Supreme Court Justice isn't supposed to go via party lines. All decisions should be almost unanimous all the time in every case if judges vote as per the Constitution. Maybe one or two might see it differently, but all from the same party? No. It's corrupt. They are voting based on party lines in contrast to what their job requires of impartiality, and against their oaths.

I don't care what you or anyone says. Scalia knew what he was doing. He screwed this country up forever with that common Trojan Horse clause. Because of it, we will never, ever have guns on par with the military in the future. All it takes now is for a state to pass a law or the corrupt agents at the ATF who aren't even elected to rewrite law that they aren't supposed to do to begin with and scotus doesn't stop them.

They take cases about wedding cakes and pass up all gun-related cases. Anyone can see that they are corrupt.

I'm done here. Post away and defend their corruption. Scalia didn't save us. He fucked us. People are too naive to not realize it.

 

[Truebeliever]

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. At this point it isn't worth debating anymore. At least for me.

A Supreme Court Judge isn't supposed to try to make it easier to sell for the liberal judges to pass it. A Supreme Court Justice isn't supposed to add conjecture that isn't written in the Bill of Rights itself. A Supreme Court Justice isn't supposed to go via party lines. All decisions should be almost unanimous all the time in every case if judges vote as per the Constitution. Maybe one or two might see it differently, but all from the same party? No. It's corrupt. They are voting based on party lines in contrast to what their job requires of impartiality, and against their oaths.

I don't care what you or anyone says. Scalia knew what he was doing. He screwed this country up forever with that common Trojan Horse clause. Because of it, we will never, ever have guns on par with the military in the future. All it takes now is for a state to pass a law or the corrupt agents at the ATF who aren't even elected to rewrite law that they aren't supposed to do to begin with and scotus doesn't stop them.

They take cases about wedding cakes and pass up all gun-related cases. Anyone can see that they are corrupt.

I'm done here. Post away and defend their corruption. Scalia didn't save us. He fucked us. People are too naive to not realize it.

You are clearly not understanding how things work. The justices hear the arguments, research the case, the law etc, then debate their decision amongst each other. It’s how they write the majority opinions, determine who will write that opinion and come to concenus. That’s why we don’t hear the courts ruling until months later .

They might even agree on the verdict but disagree as to why , concurring opinions are often written.

Without the writing and the outside reasearch, do you know who also does this? A jury. They see the evidence, testimony, and the law as explained to them by the judge, and debate. It’s not a simple vote unless the jury wants that and all agree.

 

[nortatoga]

That is not corruption or not being impartial. They honestly interrupted the 2nd ( the five who voted correctly) and believed that they should be limitations as all rights in the constitution are.

It doesn’t mean corruption. Scalia needed to build concensus as to what it was. That’s not corruption. Corruption would have said there is no individual right. It would have just taken one less justice to vote correctly and the second admendment would have been what anti gun people say it was andvwe would have had to count on just political power to own guns, and our self defense rights would have been more limited

Scalia saved our rights. And his common use if they would properly enforce it on the lower courts would protect full magazine capacity and

What some don't seem to understand it that they did not throw out all the Laws that they were living with for 200+ years! And start writing new ones. Those laws remained until challenged and ruled Unconstitutional by the Courts after *marberry v madison*

The prohibiting of carrying concealed weapons was fine with the general population ( They all carried openly, So not an infringement) so who was going to challenge that Scoundrels and Highwaymen and such? Why I posted the definition of established at the beginning of this thread.

So you look at that as a Infringement today, back then before and after it was not.

Now let's look at people from that period looking froward, What would they think was an infringement today? My guess would be the 5 States that don't allow open carry. States issuing concealed license's would not be a issue with them because it was not for the Scoundrels and Highwaymen or such but for law abiding people.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are clearly not understanding how things work. The justices hear the arguments, research the case, the law etc, then debate their decision amongst each other. It’s how they write the majority opinions, determine who will write that opinion and come to concenus. That’s why we don’t hear the courts ruling until months later .

They might even agree on the verdict but disagree as to why , concurring opinions are often written.

Without the writing and the outside reasearch, do you know who also does this? A jury. They see the evidence, testimony, and the law as explained to them by the judge, and debate. It’s not a simple vote unless the jury wants that and all agree.

Nobody said anything about the process not being that way. And you are still using the same arguments over and over and ignoring the founder's actual quotes just like those justices did during Heller and also ignoring the other amendments from the same document that have limitations in contrast to the 2A which clearly did not.

The founders made themselves clear yet those justices and people that want limitations pick and choose what they want to see and ignore what they don't want to see so that limitations can be set.

 

[Truebeliever]

Nobody said anything about the process not being that way. And you are still using the same arguments over and over and ignoring the founder's actual quotes just like those justices did during Heller and also ignoring the other amendments from the same document that have limitations in contrast to the 2A which clearly did not.

The founders made themselves clear yet those justices and people that want limitations pick and choose what they want to see and ignore what they don't want to see so that limitations can be set.

You aren’t understanding the quotes. We are in agreement about individual right. But again, it was a limit on the federal government when they wrote it, not on state government. The state constitutions were for that, and even with same or similar wording in those stare constitutions, they allowed for certain limitations on the carrying and storing of arms. They banned certain uncommon arms . They told how and where one could store gun powder.

Founders also weren’t all in agreement about what things meant, like today. They were in agreement about the individual right and had a common conception of limitations. The argument is where those rights begin and end.

And as far how the surpreme court deliberates, it was no different back then , then it is today. Multi judge courts were common then.

We are trying to explain that what you think about how the courts work, intended to work, and even how the framers set it up, is not correct. You have a misconception.

As far as federal judges having as much say over the executive, it is an issue. Clarence Thomas has said it looks like that will come to the SCOTUS soon and they( or at least he) are concerned about it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

We are going around in circles here. How courts work have nothing to do with what they pick and choose to look at.

 

[Truebeliever]

We are going around in circles here. How courts work have nothing to do with what they pick and choose to look at.

Huh? Again, you don’t understand how it works then or now.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Huh? Again, you don’t understand how it works then or now.

Forget it. You keep saying the same thing. It's tiring. I've already numerous times explained how the courts pick and choose arguments that they can use to further their agenda, add conjecture, and ignore what's actually written in the Bill of Rights in it's entirety.

We are getting nowhere with this conversation. You'll just keep pointing out how the courts work and justify their nonsense. It's not the process of how they work that's the issue. It's what they use during the process to further their agenda that's the issue.