| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/27/2005 5:07:26 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flamewar |
Posted on 04/26/2005 7:53:22 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Well put. That was my first thought too.
The Congress wrote the law poorly. The actual outcome of the case may indeed be in line with what the Congress wanted (I hope so, but the Congress is full of Rinos and Rats ...), but it is not in line with what they actually wrote.
Unintended consequences.
You misunderstand. The man is an American.
I agree. Personally, I agree with the majority, liberal position on this one, and disagree with the conservatives. That makes me worried!
... The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions....
We're only pretending to go left, eh?
Maggots.
Here is a link to the opinion. You are exactly right that it depends on the meaning of "any". Many posters disagree with the conservative justices in this case, but to agree with the majority is to support legislation from the bench. The statute may or may not be poorly worded, but that does not give the Supremes carte blanche to depart from the plain meaning of words. "Any" means any. The statute does not say "...any federal or state court...", it says "any court". If conviction in these instances are not the desired legislative intent, then the statute needs to be changed.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26apr20050800/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-750.pdf
So, does the guy who was arrested in Mexico for having a single shotgun shell in his vehicle get his rights restored after US courts stripped him of all his guns when he came home???
Agreed. And, think of the implications and the threat that brings to the country in this, narrow application.
An individual, known to have violated the firearms laws of ANY country, is allowed to own weapons here. In this age of terrorism, what do you think the reaction would be if this individual continued on his scofflaw ways...
I like the decision but hasn't the Supreme Court decided it has to consider foreign court decisions?
This seems inconsistent.
Thomas is right. Here, you have an example of the liberal justices temporarily putting on hold their anti-gun agenda in order to legislate from the bench. What part of 'any' isn't clear to them?
"This seems inconsistent."
It is.
You can't say on one hand that 'foreign law applies', and on the other, that the 'conviction in a foreign court' doesn't.
Thomas is spot on. If congress wants to limit the scope of 'any' to just US courts, it's congress's job to do that, not the supreme court.
The Bush administration was pushing for this? That sure is disappointing. Must be more of that "compassionate conservatism".
You're exactly right. So many are blinded by the subject of the decision - guns - that they can't focus on the sinister method the court used to get to a decision they find appealing. Its very sad our country has come to the point where even conservatives here would cheer the supreme court for making policy decisions, rather than strictly interpreting the constitution and federal statutes.
Supreme Court............ not so supreme.
Wonder when the U.S. will adopt the liberal drinking laws of Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.