| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/02/2010 8:51:29 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
See new thread |
Posted on 03/02/2010 7:52:21 AM PST by ctdonath2
There's a lot of interest in the McDonald case's oral arguments happening right now.
What really upsets me is that on P&I it would open the doors to challenge many federal and state laws that infringe on us daily, yet with the DP argument it’s only going to affect one single issue.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to see the 2A be incorporated more than most seeing that I live in Massachusetts, and this would open the door to many changes in our current laws, but the P&I argument would of blown the doors off the hinges.
The NRA won’t be seeing any money from me this year, they’re only in this to justify their existence, honestly, they’ve left us here in Mass hung out to dry, if it wasn’t for GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) we wouldn’t have any voice as gun owners in this state.
The problem with listening to one side’s argument is that the other side usually has very good arguments too.
Most SCOTUS cases gould go either way. That’s one of the importanmt reasons why they were awarded certiorari.
Would you mind posting any of the relavant tweets?
Wondering how you know what watery dog food taste like?
Guns are legal to possess in NJ but NJ has incredibly restrictive laws on them. I think it will come down to another case before the Supreme Court, perhaps on the right to carry, before anything changes in NJ.
Out of curiosity, I just watched the “Supersize Me†movie. Other than Subway, I don’t think I’ll ever eat at a fastfood place again.
I think they taste great AND are less filling... so what do I do now?
There is another movie about someone who LOST weight eating at McD’s or someplace - it came out as a satire of ‘supersize’ to show its bias
MCDONALD:"From My Cold, Dead Hands!!!"
I thought McDonald’s had the best shakes, but had one at Burger King the other day, and it was even better! Too bad I’m on a diet now.
LOL!
You should ask a mod to pull this.
Today at the Court
McDonald v. Chicago argument
Erin Miller | Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 8:59 am
The Court is expected to announce opinions at 10 a.m., which we will be live-blogging. Then the Court will hear argument in the gun rights case McDonald v. City of Chicago and in Hui v. Castaneda:
~10 a.m. – At issue in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) is whether the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms should apply (or be “incorporated” against) to state and local governments, through either the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lyle Denniston’s extensive background post on the case is here.
~11 a.m. – In Hui v. Castaneda (08-1529; 08-1547), the Court will consider whether “Bivens actions” may be brought against doctors and nurses in federal medical facilities regarding flaws in medical care claimed to violate patients’ constitutional rights, when patients may also sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Luke Appling, a student at Harvard Law School, previews the case this morning for SCOTUSblog.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/today-at-the-court-131/
Please delete this thread. Jokers have hijacked it from the beginning. Another thread with a better title has been started.
Coulda sworn the second amendment was there to protect the first.
I doubt the jokes will interfere much with the rapid pace of the breaking news anyway.
Just did.
Hey, McDonalds is advertising their double fish filet sandwiches. Yummy.
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.