A Complete Sentence: The Second Amendment

[AlaskaHunter]

If you think that taking AR's away is their end goal, you're not very well informed.

Does anyone truly feel like they are well represented by someone in high level government?

If I remember history class correctly, the colonists were upset because no one in the government represented their needs. Then they were getting the shit taxed out of them so they rebelled. They wouldn't have been able to rebel without weapons.

At what point are we being unreasonably taxed? Sending 100's of billions overseas to other countries seems foolish.


View attachment 260543

Fake news (above)

Capital gains tax...for a 401k it could be as low as an effective tax rate of 7-8 percent (mine was last year)
...no capital gains tax on first $500,000 of primary residence
...typically 15% for married couple filing jointly up to $517,200

Inheritance Tax....There is no federal inheritance tax, but there is a federal estate tax. The federal estate tax generally applies to assets over $12.92 million in 2023.

 

[rjthehunter]

Fake news (above)

Capital gains tax...for a 401k it could be as low as an effective tax rate of 7-8 percent (mine was last year)
...no capital gains tax on first $500,000 of primary residence
...typically 15% for married couple filing jointly up to $517,200

Inheritance Tax....There is no federal inheritance tax, but there is a federal estate tax. The federal estate tax generally applies to assets over $12.92 million in 2023.

Capital gains is 15%. If you make between ~45k to ~500k you pay 15%.

You pay taxes on a 401k when it's time to start collecting.

So estate tax in MN is basically a death tax. It's a tax on someone's estate once the die before being paid out to the benificaries. 13-16% if the estate is worth $3 million or more.

 

[Jape]

Do you think by and large Justices stick to their interpretation? How textualist was Scalia, when convenient or always?

They are generally principled. Scalia is really one of the foundational fathers of textualism and perhaps it’s greatest proponent.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They are generally principled. Scalia is really one of the foundational fathers of textualism and perhaps it’s greatest proponent.

Let's put it this way. The issues cobbled together by the political parties lack any consistent moral or intellectual basis. Control people here, but not here.

The rulings of the justices over the last couple of decades mirror that... so while one may argue that in fact a justice is adhering to a set of specific beliefs about how to interpret the law, it seems by the decisions that is in fact not occurring.

Or oddly convenient.

Seems more like, I'm going to decide my favored outcome then develop a textualist or constructionist argument to arrive at the conclusion.

Put more simply, there is nothing that anyone can say to convince me that Scalia said to himself... "hmmm I'm not sure where I stand on this, let's do a deep dive and see what we find." He looked for proof that supported his ideas.

It's the same reason you do double blind studies in science, implicit bias.

 

[Jape]

Let's put it this way. The issues cobbled together by the political parties lack any consistent moral or intellectual basis. Control people here, but not here.

The rulings of the justices over the last couple of decades mirror that... so while one may argue that in fact a justice is adhering to a set of specific beliefs about how to interpret the law, it seems by the decisions that is in fact not occurring.

Or oddly convenient.

Seems more like, I'm going to decide my favored outcome then develop a textualist or constructionist argument to arrive at the conclusion.

Put more simply, there is nothing that anyone can say to convince me that Scalia said to himself... "hmmm I'm not sure where I stand on this, let's do a deep dive and see what we find." He looked for proof that supported his ideas.

It's the same reason you do double blind studies in science, implicit bias.

This would be accurate only if his 30 years of jurisprudence supported that conclusion. However, it does not.

 

[OriginalOscar]

there is nothing that anyone can say to convince me that Scalia said to himself... "hmmm I'm not sure where I stand on this, let's do a deep dive and see what we find." He looked for proof that supported his ideas.

Founders created an amazing system of checks, balances and your bias reflects lack of appreciation and understanding of American history and government. We all question and disagree with various SCOTUS rulings, but the courts generally do arrive at decisions which align and respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Founders created an amazing system of checks, balances and your bias reflects lack of appreciation and understanding of American history and government. We all question and disagree with various SCOTUS rulings, but the courts generally do arrive at decisions which align and respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Checks and balances that are being flouted, it was never the intention of the founders for the judiciary to legislate from the bench.

For the record I'm being critical of a bunch of decisions whose outcomes I like/prefer, they're bullshit but they align with my world view.

IMHO it's the role of the legislature to promulgate new laws, if society evolves and laws need to adapt those changes need to be made by the legislature, period.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This would be accurate only if his 30 years of jurisprudence supported that conclusion. However, it does not.

Your opinion.

If you think Scalia and RBG didn't have a pile of implicit bias that drove their decisions you're kidding yourself.

Scalia was going to support firearm ownership no matter what, RBG was going to support reproductive rights no matter what.

They were both incredibly smart, but their decisions on these issues were predetermine by their beliefs.

Sure esoteric tax cases or whatever, unbiased, but the big landmark "social" issues 0 impartiality.

This is supported simply by the fact that there are reversals on decisions, and that their called "opinions", there are no facts here the entire field is subjective, therefore riddled with bias, mostly strongly seen when a case touches an a subject that is part of the identify of a jurist.

Heller
Russo
Dobbs
Roe
Bruen

All of these cases at their core have an unenumerated right factor, yet no justice votes consistently on every case, it's picking and choosing. Look at Thomas specifically... on Dobbs and Brune. I'm not the first to point out that, Thomas, "will use originalism where it provides support for a politically conservative result" but ignores originalism when "history provides no support" for a conservative ruling.

Do I even need to go there with Alito and Sotomayor?

 

[Jape]

Your opinion.

If you think Scalia and RBG didn't have a pile of implicit bias that drove their decisions you're kidding yourself.

Scalia was going to support firearm ownership no matter what, RBG was going to support reproductive rights no matter what.

They were both incredibly smart, but their decisions on these issues were predetermine by their beliefs.

Sure esoteric tax cases or whatever, unbiased, but the big landmark "social" issues 0 impartiality.

This is supported simply by the fact that there are reversals on decisions, and that their called "opinions", there are no facts here the entire field is subjective, therefore riddled with bias, mostly strongly seen when a case touches an a subject that is part of the identify of a jurist.

Heller
Russo
Dobbs
Roe
Bruen

All of these cases at their core have an unenumerated right factor, yet no justice votes consistently on every case, it's picking and choosing. Look at Thomas specifically... on Dobbs and Brune. I'm not the first to point out that, Thomas, "will use originalism where it provides support for a politically conservative result" but ignores originalism when "history provides no support" for a conservative ruling.

Do I even need to go there with Alito and Sotomayor?

The real issue with your position is that you confuse judicial philosophy with political bias. It is easy, and frankly a little intellectually lazy, to suggest that a justice interpreted the 2nd amendment simply to conform to a long held bias. It takes more discernment to carefully read the opinions and correlate them with an interpretation of law to determine whether that law is constitutional or not.

The law is not as black and white as you would like. That is why justices regularly vote contrary on “hot button” cases than many predicted and against their political beliefs. For example:

Robert’s - Sebelius; US v. Texas; Bruen, etc…
Scalia - Johnson; King; Brown, etc…
Ginsberg - Roe; White; Sineneng-Smith
Thomas - Cooper; Ramos, etc…

Btw, those are cases, interpreting some of the most foundational principles of our country (e.g. 1st amendment, 14th amendment, etc)

If I had the time I could show you examples for every single justice on the United States Supreme Court. By your reasoning, the justices, who have a life appointment, would never have any motivation to decide a case based on any other motive but their biases. That is not born out by any empirical evidence. It just isn’t.

I understand you don’t have any faith in our supreme court. You are entitled to that opinion, but I have seen no evidence of that and I suspect I have studied it in much more depth and breadth than you have.

I think you are kidding yourself and causing yourself undue aggravation simply because you misinterpret the above distinction. For example, I certainly do not agree with many of Ginsberg‘s opinions, but I respect her principled approach and consistency. I think you would do well to do the same.

 

[Poke 'Em]

One should first understand the definition of militia in 1776 and not by todays standards.

Second Amendment

Definition of Second Amendment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Thankfully we don't interpret everything by 1776 standards anymore. We certainly don't apply "person" in the same manner as we did 250 years ago.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The real issue with your position is that you confuse judicial philosophy with political bias.

I'm specifically saying that they don't adhere to their own judicial philosophy.
If you want to take me to task that's fine, explain how Thomas is consistent in Dobbs and Heller or Bruen.

If you want to just call me stupid, that's fine as well.

I think you are kidding yourself and causing yourself undue aggravation simply because you misinterpret the above distinction.

They're humans, we all have bias. It's not that I don't have faith in them, it's that I don't pretend they are automatons set on a course with particular logic algorithm.

 

[DouglasR]

The real issue with your position is that you confuse judicial philosophy with political bias. It is easy, and frankly a little intellectually lazy, to suggest that a justice interpreted the 2nd amendment simply to conform to a long held bias. It takes more discernment to carefully read the opinions and correlate them with an interpretation of law to determine whether that law is constitutional or not.

The law is not as black and white as you would like. That is why justices regularly vote contrary on “hot button” cases than many predicted and against their political beliefs. For example:

Robert’s - Sebelius; US v. Texas; Bruen, etc…
Scalia - Johnson; King; Brown, etc…
Ginsberg - Roe; White; Sineneng-Smith
Thomas - Cooper; Ramos, etc…

Btw, those are cases, interpreting some of the most foundational principles of our country (e.g. 1st amendment, 14th amendment, etc)

If I had the time I could show you examples for every single justice on the United States Supreme Court. By your reasoning, the justices, who have a life appointment, would never have any motivation to decide a case based on any other motive but their biases. That is not born out by any empirical evidence. It just isn’t.

I understand you don’t have any faith in our supreme court. You are entitled to that opinion, but I have seen no evidence of that and I suspect I have studied it in much more depth and breadth than you have.

I think you are kidding yourself and causing yourself undue aggravation simply because you misinterpret the above distinction. For example, I certainly do not agree with many of Ginsberg‘s opinions, but I respect her principled approach and consistency. I think you would do well to do the same.

 

[Jape]

I'm specifically saying that they don't adhere to their own judicial philosophy.
If you want to take me to task that's fine, explain how Thomas is consistent in Dobbs and Heller or Bruen.

If you want to just call me stupid, that's fine as well.



They're humans, we all have bias. It's not that I don't have faith in them, it's that I don't pretend they are automatons set on a course with particular logic algorithm.

I think you’re taking more offense to this than was intended, which is none. Naturally human beings are imperfect and have bias. The question that we in the law must always ask ourselves is whether we can put that bias away as best we can to arrive at the correct conclusion in accordance with the law.

I think the justices over the past 200+ years have done that in a remarkable way. Their track record speaks for itself, while also acknowledging they have made mistakes.

I actually think it’s beautiful when justices disagree with each other. I love to read their well reasoned opinions because it engages me and helps me to think critically about issues in ways that perhaps I had not before. Maybe the greatest telltale sign that the Supreme Court is doing exactly what it was supposed to do is the respect that all the justices have for each other despite their different opinions. Honestly, I think they do about the best that they can.

 

[DouglasR]

@wllm youve been dropping a lot of legal knowledge lately, are you thinking about running for mayor of Detroit?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

correct conclusion in accordance with the law.

If what your mean is correct (for society) in accordance with the law, then we are more or less interjecting some "what is best for the nation" into interpreting the law.

Whether they are succeeding can be judged by public opinion, which says they are sucking... hard.

The supreme court currently has the lowest approval it's had since those kinda polls have been conducted.

Gallup has asked American's how much faith they have in the Supreme court for decades. Currently it's the lowest in 50 years.





If "correct conclusion in accordance with the law" is correctly interpreting the intention of the law when it was passed, with little regard to currently society, then I guess you could argue that peoples attitudes to the court don't matter. If folks are pissed they can vote to change the law because in reality they are frustrated with the law not the court.


The problem here is justices like Thomas say they are following this later view of a jurist, but then occasionally switch to the former.

 

[Sytes]

@wllm youve been dropping a lot of legal knowledge lately, are you thinking about running for mayor of Detroit?

He is finding a quality political skill in debate.

I *jest, kinda. Recall our (Willm and I) debate a few years ago regarding armed citizenry based on population *then and now?

2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and 100% to do with personal self defense and protections from foreign and domestic invasion oppression.

Busse, Gifford's, and their ilk believe otherwise. First Amendment rights at peaceful events to BB gun restrictions.

A world clouded by bias based on impulsive emotion that push an agenda that guns in law abiding citizen hands is adverse to America.

God bless our founding fathers for the creation of our Constitution and our citizen Bill of Rights.

*Edits due to Google word f-ups.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@wllm youve been dropping a lot of legal knowledge lately, are you thinking about running for mayor of Detroit?

Absolutely not.

... New York 3rd

 

[Jape]

If what your mean is correct (for society) in accordance with the law, then we are more or less interjecting some "what is best for the nation" into interpreting the law.

Whether they are succeeding can be judged by public opinion, which says they are sucking... hard.

The supreme court currently has the lowest approval it's had since those kinda pools have been conducted.

Gallup has asked American's how much faith they have in the Supreme court for decades. Currently it's the lowest in 50 years.


View attachment 263012
View attachment 263013

If "correct conclusion in accordance with the law" is correctly interpreting the intention of the law when it was passed, with little regard to currently society, then I guess you could argue that peoples attitudes to the court don't matter. If folks are pissed they can vote to change the law.


The problem here is justices like Thomas say they are following this later view of a jurist, but then occasionally switch to the former.

If the metric for success in a government branch is based on public opinion, then they all are losing and have been for the past 100 years!



You will notice the executive approval only changes with whomever is in power. Those numbers say much more about our society than they do about the justices……

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I actually think it’s beautiful when justices disagree with each other. I love to read their well reasoned opinions because it engages me and helps me to think critically about issues in ways that perhaps I had not before.

When extremely important decisions go 5/4 and that 1 vote difference is entirely a result of politics it's pretty easy to see why people say it's all horse pucky.

Clearly the deciding factor in those moments isn't a well reasoned argument, or a difference in judicial philosophy.

For a lot of folks the ramifications of these decisions go well beyond an interesting thought exercise.

 

[Jape]

When extremely important decisions go 5/4 and that 1 vote difference is entirely a result of politics it's pretty easy to see why people say it's all horse pucky.

Clearly the deciding factor in those moments isn't a well reasoned argument, or a difference in judicial philosophy.

For a lot of folks the ramifications of these decisions go well beyond an interesting thought exercise.

Why can’t it be a difference of judicial philosophy?