Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

This just shows that you don't get it. There is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to consume alcohol, there is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.....you know, just like there is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of all citizens to vote. Now these rights can be taken away for reasons such as being a felon, but they cannot be stripped simply to raise the age.

No, that's not more constructive, that's something that is completely and totally irrelevant. The fact that you are looking to strip citizens between 18-21 of their civil rights is what is important here.

Again, you are displaying your ignorance on the subject. It's not that owning a gun is essential, it's that the right to own a gun is essential....you know, like voting. The vast majority of people don't vote, doesn't mean that the right to vote isn't essential. The right to own a gun and the right to vote a 2 of the most essential rights, without them you never get to the civil rights further down the chain.

It's not messed up at all....unless you believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with abortion. I don't.

 

That's not relevant at all. That would be merely explaining part of the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. Many on the left have tried to use that in order to strip the rights of the people, but that interpretation, an interpretation that seemingly doesn't understand basic English grammar, has failed.

 

But there are already age requirement laws at both state and federal that require buyer to be 18 or 21 depending on the seller, type of gun and state. In NYC the minimum age requirement is 21 across board.

Are all these laws then an infringement of the 2nd? If so, why have they not been repealed.

Setting an age requirement is not an infringement of the 2nd amendment, as there is no minimum age attached to it.

 

The problem is with those that do not appreciate the gravity of their choice and thus remain uneducated about it. They become potential prey to demagogues and other riff raffs who seek to exploit them for their own political gains.

We have enough of that problem with the existing voters and dont think more should be added

 

But there are existing age requirements for the possession of firearms in various forms, so to claim a review of it is to take away the right is simply FALSE

Again 2nd amendment is not a civil right! if you dont know the difference between a civil right and a civil liberty, then go and see a lawyer or take classes in law.
and there are already age requirement, reviewing them does not equate to stripping a civil liberty like you claim.

There is nothing essential about the right to own a gun. There are several countries where citizens dont have that right and they are doing just fine.

I have no problem with abortion in of itself, but it should be the choice of those directly affected. But to incentivize people to commit abortion under some misguided notion of a greater good is messed up and that you fail to see what is wrong with that kind of thinking is even more worrying.

 

op-ed at the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The opposition to Kavanaugh is actually not about him, but about the man who nominated him, Donald Trump. Democratic senators — especially those running for president or for re-election in liberal states — want to show their political base that they are part of the resistance to everything Trump stands for. The irony is that Kavanaugh is a remarkably un-Trumpian nominee."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...-the-politics-Kavanaugh-superbly-13216631.php

 

I am not sure what you are getting at. Have these laws been challenged in court and upheld? You do realize it is possible for an unconstitutional law to be voted on, pass, and signed into law. If that happens the law will remain until it is either repealed by the law makers responsible for it or by the courts. The courts only repeal laws that are challenged and come before them. They do not just go around looking for things to put before the court. I think anyone in the 18 - 21 age range would have a very legitimate case that could very well end up in the SCOTUS. I am sure there would be strong arguments for the 2nd amendment rights of the 18 - 21 year old group as well as strong arguments for the 10th Amendment giving the state the right to make these decisions. Would it be found unconstitutional? That answer would depend on the merits of the case and do they sway the current Justices on the court. I think it would be repealed.

 

Low and poor imaginations. It’s not necessary one or the other. In this situation, it’s likely both.

If I remember one of the line of questioning from the senator from Arizona, he was clearly concern about Trump planting a yes Dear Leader justice. And I’m sure we have all seen the concern about taking away abortion right. And I think we now see this nominee is quite deceptive and not truthful, something trump excel at. It’s really not at all hard to imagine many people that have honest concerns about both.

 

I will simply disagree with the bolded part. I see no evidence for this claim

 

One example of him being deceptive and not truthful.

https://earthjustice.org/news/press...-environment-rulings-in-confirmation-hearings

https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analys...-record-did-kavanaugh-lie-senate#.W5bbh-hKjnY

 

you forgot one

https://foe.org/brett-kavanaugh-disaster-environment/

 

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1614698.html

There have been several other similar cases, including cases on assault rifle ban and all has been ruled in favor of the government/law.

The SCOTUS has yet to overrule any of the lower courts despite multiple cases.

Any other excuses or just your unprofessional opinion that these are violations of the 2nd?`

 

What I love is that you'll get to look forward to having the SCOTUS rule that those age requirements are unconstitutional....and not just because they violate the 2nd amendment but because they violate the 14th amendment as well.

It's only a semantic difference and you probably know that. Civil liberties are rights.

The constitution disagrees with your opinion, if you'd like to move to one of those other countries, you are free to do so.

If there's nothing wrong with people killing their children simply because they want to then there should be nothing wrong with people killing their children for a couple hundred bucks. If there's anything immoral about offering people money to kill their kids, then there is implicitly something immoral about them killing their kids on a whim. Also, when you say "commit abortion", you are implying that there is something wrong with it because the word is only used to describe carrying out a crime, something immoral, or a mistake.....perhaps your words betray your true feelings on the issue.

Either way, I'd ask you to be consistent.

 

No, there is no real debate about this. He is deceptive at a minimum and possibly not truthful. Even the legal scholars in an article you posted earlier articulated this point.

Does that mean he shouldn’t be approved? I find it concerning, but that is just my opinion. You can argue the opposite and at the end of the day he will be approved.

The court is as politically motivated and partisan as it has been in a long time and that is not usually a good thing. The level of partisanship goes for both sides of the aisle in the court.

 

I think there is plenty to debate on the claim that "he is deceptive at a minimum and possibly not truthful." There is a difference between being evasive in answering dumb questions (that every supreme court nominee since Ginsberg has evaded answering) and what you're labeling as "deceptive" and "not truthful."

Here's some serious debate about this. You may disagree with these authors' conclusions, but it is simply begging the question to assert "there is no real debate about this."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-perjury-claims-totally-baseless/

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/refuting-anti-kavanaugh-smears-manny-miranda-controversy/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-character-assassination-by-democrats/

and as I said earlier, even Vox couldn't cough up law professors to support the perjury/lies/deception/not truthful claims:

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury

 

There have been many cases in which the ruling was in favor of the law and at no point has the SCOTUS overruled the lower courts or rule said laws as unconstitutional

Its not just semaantics, cos that would be like saying playing dead and being dead is just semantics.

Yes it is so essential that it was added as an amendment? The US constitution is not an authority on what is essential and what is not. It is like any other human created document - it is fallible and reviewable. After all, the US constitution once gave us prohibition, which led to one of the worst decades of crime.

There is nothing wrong with people having sex, but it is illegal in most states to pay someone to have sex.

Parents of the unborn child should have the sole right to decide what happens and people like you should keep your sick logic out of it.

 

Hence why I said that is something you get to look forward to happening fairly soon.

It's nothing like that, but I understand why you don't get it.

Yes, it was seen as so essential that it was added as the 2nd amendment....something that was deemed as more essential than the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house without permission during peace time. Again though, you give off the impression that you don't particularly approve of the liberties that this country was founded on, so it's not a surprise that you'd want to eliminate the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

That's because casual sex is seen as immoral, if it weren't seen that way, it wouldn't be illegal....and in fact, it's not illegal everywhere.

Anyway, you've pretty much tipped your hand as to viewing abortion as immoral so I won't force to to lie about it any further. I'll just say that while you might find it immoral, I don't. People should be allowed to profit off of killing their kids if killing your kids is legal.

 

There is nothing to look forward to. The supreme court has ruled and overturned gun laws they felt unconstitutional and have left alone those that are not.

It is cos Civil rights and civil liberties are not at the same level of gravity.

It is NOT essential and being in the US constitution or not is irrelevant or do you not know what it means for something to be essential.

Also at no point have I requested a repeal of the 2nd amendment but if that is what it will take to stop the increasing mass shooting then so be it. We are not in 1791 and the idea of an immutable constitution is delusional. cos its not

Unfortunately, and unlike you, I dont ascribe morality in a vacuum. I have no moral issue with someone aborting the child of her rapist but see issues with someone doing it just cos they can. But that is my personal judgement and has nothing to do with people having the right to make their own choice. It like how I feel voting for or supporting Trump is stupid, but people deserve the right to make their own choices.

You on the other hand have the sick idea of paying people to GET (happy?) abortions by deluding yourself that it serves some greater good. Guess that you have such an idea precludes any awareness of how messed up such thinking is.

 

LOL fair enough, just don't act surprised when it happens.

Without civil liberties there would be no civil rights....so in a way you are right, you just don't seem to understand which of the 2 are more vital.

Again, that's your opinion which differs from the constitution and what the country was founded upon. Fundamental rights are different from other lesser rights or liberties in that they can only be altered or infringed upon with a constitutional amendment.....that level of protection is something you ONLY do for the most essential of rights.

That said, I'm fine with you not agreeing....it's just that your opinion doesn't matter on the subject given that it runs counter to what the country was founded upon.

And that take invalidates your opinion on the subject.

Since apparently essential civil liberties are up for purchase, what would your right to vote cost? What about your right to free speech?

It doesn't really matter what your price is, the point is that you are the type of person the constitution was created to protect the people against.

If there's nothing wrong with people making the choice to kill their kids then there should be nothing "messed up" with people being paid to make that decision. Either you feel like the initial decision is "messed up" on some level or there's no basis to think that people making that decision for a bit of money is "messed up"