Yep, shoddy. Obvious even to this layman. And to think they make fun of Clarence Thomas' writing skills! I love reading his opinions almost as much as Scalia's. The liberal side should be embarassed.
Kinda makes this election all that more important, doesn’t it?
I can believe there are people capable of reading English who don’t realize the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. Really scary.
So much rides on this election.
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
– Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
FYI the term “well-regulated” at the time the 2A was written meant “well provsioned.”
This to me shows their Judicial Activism. They do not even care if they are correct,they are trying to make law. I wonder if it could be grounds for impeachment. Judges and the system punish Americans daily for mistakes. Lawyers never get sued for shoddy work or representation. Something needs to be done.
More likely they just don't care; us vs. them, that's it. This is what makes me think that sooner or later, the U.S. may have to be split up.
—bflr—
There's one other reason.
Stevens is obviously laboring under the impairment of senility. Some of his recent opinions (Kelo, for instance) have been chock full of factual errors, even citing the 180-degree opposite of some prior decisions.
OK. If the 2A only means that states may maintain a militia it, thereby, means that states have a right to maintain nuclear arms, cruise missiles and aircraft carriers.
Since Stevens is lying on and about court documents, can’t we push for his impeachment?
BOOM
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
You just can’t hire good help these days. The clerks who contributed to this should be dismissed. Too bad that the SCOTUS judges don’t seem to read what they sign.
Lib justices don’t know the precedents? How surprising!
The Constitution can be amended by the Congress and state legislatures.
The President can’t amend the Constitution, nor veto an amendment passed by Congress.
The Supreme Court can’t amend the Constitution.
There are those who think it can, but they are wrong.
Thanks neverdem.
Dunno about relevance, but this was interesting:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am11
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am11
The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v Georgia (2 U.S. 419) in 1793 (see the Events Page for details). Congress felt that the Supreme Court had over stepped its bounds, and feared it would do so again unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Chisholm case was decided in 1793, just five years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7, 1795 (340 days). The Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Later interpretations have expanded this to include citizens of the state being sued, as well.
In Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]), the passage and ratification of the 11th was challenged for two reasons. First because the President did not sign the amendment bill, and second because the amendment presented a situation where people had some legal relief before ratification that dried up after, creating an ex post facto situation. The Supreme Court rejected both challenges, setting some important precedent for future amendments.
The answer is (2).
Truth, in the liberal mind, is all relative, not something to be discovered, but something to be created to serve one's personal interests.
Does anyone really believe the Constitution contains a right to abortion? Liberal justices routinely manipulate history to support their desired outcomes.
No, it doesn't. It means that the twenty of them, or at least the justices are, how shall I put this -- "results oriented", and would sign a piece of dog shit if it advanced their policy objectives. Come to think of it...