Jump to content

John Roberts goes to school


Recommended Posts

The Chief Judge of the United States thinks the Constitution allows an expiration date for written law.

 

In arguments today over the workplace mandates: 

Robberts: "The Executive Branch shouldn't act on this occupational safety and health hazard. Congress should authorize it." 

Solicitor General Prelogar: "Ummmm... they did. They passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)." 

Robberts: "But that law doesn't count anymore; it was passed over 50 years ago. Besides, it doesn't mention COVID-19 by name." 

Prelogar: "Ummm... OSHA covers a broad range of hazardous agents introduced into the workplace"  

Here's how OSHA defines hazardous agents: 
 

"Any biological agent and other disease-causing agent which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any person...will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions...or physiological deformations in such persons or their offspring. 

As implied by the plain language of this definition, the phrase "other disease-causing agents" refers to any substance not otherwise covered under subparagraphs (A)-(D) of the definition, which causes death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, etc."



https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1996-11-07

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts: "But that law doesn't count anymore; it was passed over 50 years ago. Besides, it doesn't mention COVID-19 by name." 

Roberts screwed the pooch with that comment, both feet stuffed in his mouth.  I generally like the guy, but without a DeLorean, how do you include a virus by name in a law written 50yrs before it's discovery?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Roberts: "But that law doesn't count anymore; it was passed over 50 years ago. Besides, it doesn't mention COVID-19 by name." 

Roberts screwed the pooch with that comment, both feet stuffed in his mouth.  I generally like the guy, but without a DeLorean, how do you include a virus by name in a law written 50yrs before it's discovery?
 

I'm thinking that John Roberts is using this moment to stab to death the delegation of regulatory power. Once OSHA is gone, Congress would have to pass every worker protection separately, which would be impossible to do today. Any worker without union protection would be at risk of any employer wanting to increase profitability at the cost of worker safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

I'm thinking that John Roberts is using this moment to stab to death the delegation of regulatory power. Once OSHA is gone, Congress would have to pass every worker protection separately, which would be impossible to do today. Any worker without union protection would be at risk of any employer wanting to increase profitability at the cost of worker safety.

Looks like an honest judge: he's staying bought.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The Second Amendment is more than 50 years old and does not mention AR-15s by name ;)

I think you've got that the wrong way around though - he seems to be arguing that what is not (recently) specifically forbidden is permitted.

More likely the restrictions on full auto firearms can no longer be enforced seeing as it was passed more than 50 years ago.

Given the accretion of laws & regulations one could make a decent argument for an automatic expiry date, but this just seems to be a mess. Are you supposed to put every new disease on a list by regulation or legislation before you can take steps to ameliorate or eliminate it?

Come on.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm thinking that John Roberts is using this moment to stab to death the delegation of regulatory power. Once OSHA is gone, Congress would have to pass every worker protection separately, which would be impossible to do today. Any worker without union protection would be at risk of any employer wanting to increase profitability at the cost of worker safety.

He'll lose BK's support if brewery workers threaten to strike.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I think you've got that the wrong way around though - he seems to be arguing that what is not (recently) specifically forbidden is permitted.

More likely the restrictions on full auto firearms can no longer be enforced seeing as it was passed more than 50 years ago.

Given the accretion of laws & regulations one could make a decent argument for an automatic expiry date, but this just seems to be a mess. Are you supposed to put every new disease on a list by regulation or legislation before you can take steps to ameliorate or eliminate it?

Come on.

FKT

 

I think most AR15's are semi-not fully automatic.  Same as my Ruger Mini 14, which is permitted in CT while the AR is not, because it's a scary black gun, unlike the wood stock on the Ruger which operates exactly the same semi-auto, meaning you must pull the trigger for each shot, unlike fully auto....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billy backstay said:

 

I think most AR15's are semi-not fully automatic.  Same as my Ruger Mini 14, which is permitted in CT while the AR is not, because it's a scary black gun, unlike the wood stock on the Ruger which operates exactly the same semi-auto, meaning you must pull the trigger for each shot, unlike fully auto....

Yes I know that - I was just following the logic. It wasn't helping KIS's case WRT banning Ar-15 type semiautos, more likely the logic would un-ban full auto firearms instead, seeing as they were subject to restrictive legislation more than 50 years back.

I'm not advocating for either thing, mind you, just the logical outcomes are worth following.

The 'scary black gun' thing is idiotic as I've said before. What counts is function not looks. Unless you're some form of fruitcake with no knowledge and run on gut feel which seems to be the case for far too many people in far too many fields. As covid has demonstrated so nicely...

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm thinking that John Roberts is using this moment to stab to death the delegation of regulatory power.

Corrct-a-mundo mate. 

It is very dangerous - they want to abolish the "admin state" a la Steve Bannon. 

If they go down this road how can FEMA respond to any disaster without specific action by Congress in each case ?? How can the SEC regulate ?? How can Soc Sec give you a raise ?? And kiss the EPA goodbye while you are at it. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/opinion/supreme-court-vaccine-mandates.html

 it is unrealistic to expect Congress, even when it functions well, to pass legislation in response to every new health issue or to foresee every regulation that might be required. Administrative agencies, like the C.M.S. and the Food and Drug Administration, have developed for a reason.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

Roberts: "But that law doesn't count anymore; it was passed over 50 years ago. Besides, it doesn't mention COVID-19 by name." 

Roberts screwed the pooch with that comment, both feet stuffed in his mouth.  I generally like the guy, but without a DeLorean, how do you include a virus by name in a law written 50yrs before it's discovery?
 

I'm thinking that John Roberts is using this moment to stab to death the delegation of regulatory power. Once OSHA is gone, Congress would have to pass every worker protection separately, which would be impossible to do today. Any worker without union protection would be at risk of any employer wanting to increase profitability at the cost of worker safety.

I gotta clue for ya... they are at the mercy of employers now. Countless times in my working life, pretty much my only contribution to those dreaded meetings (which I avoided like the plague whenever possible) was to speak up about "time-wasting, expensive" safety requirements. Several times I said, "We're doing it by the book, or we're not doing it" and to the bean-counters "if you think safety is expensive, wait until you get in court with a bunch of widows."

Corporate management is the new slave owners. Except that they care even less.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

 

I think most AR15's are semi-not fully automatic.  Same as my Ruger Mini 14, which is permitted in CT while the AR is not, because it's a scary black gun, unlike the wood stock on the Ruger which operates exactly the same semi-auto, meaning you must pull the trigger for each shot, unlike fully auto....

Just shut the fuck up about your guns.  Alright?

 

Meanwhile, back at the SCOTUS, I believe AJO is correct.  The power of government to regulate based on rational standards with the goal of preserving environmental,economic and human safety and security is under threat.  After all, if a government is useless to it's citizens, then it shouldn't matter if it is drowned in a bathtub or just left to rattle around in drafty offices in DC.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I gotta clue for ya... they are at the mercy of employers now. Countless times in my working life, pretty much my only contribution to those dreaded meetings (which I avoided like the plague whenever possible) was to speak up about "time-wasting, expensive" safety requirements. Several times I said, "We're doing it by the book, or we're not doing it" and to the bean-counters "if you think safety is expensive, wait until you get in court with a bunch of widows."

Corporate management is the new slave owners. Except that they care even less.

- DSK

Which suggests that only an entity as powerful as corporate management can protect workers; the Federal Government perhaps?  Where's TR when we need him?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

This guy is your Chief Justice?

He doesn't sound smart enough to be a country lawyer.

I dunno if it's smarts, it's that he's not really a full-on fascist. He only wants a partially fascist state and is trying to figure out how to take steps in that direction without letting the far right whackjobs on the court get a running start.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I dunno if it's smarts, it's that he's not really a full-on fascist. He only wants a partially fascist state and is trying to figure out how to take steps in that direction without letting the far right whackjobs on the court get a running start.

- DSK

What passes for a "Moderate Republican"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I dunno if it's smarts, it's that he's not really a full-on fascist. He only wants a partially fascist state and is trying to figure out how to take steps in that direction without letting the far right whackjobs on the court get a running start.

 

What passes for a "Moderate Republican"?

Part of being a Republican is that you refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that the parade you're marching in, is being led by malevolent fascists.

People who wake up and see that, tend to either say "yeah that's -still- better than goddam faggot pinko libby-rull socialisticalism" and they join in the charade of pretending it's still just the Grand Ol' Party; or say to themselves, 'fuck this, these people are nasty and I want no part of it."

And it's extremely wide spread. The Heritage Foundation, Fox Nation, etc etc; it used to be that even conservatives agreed that progressive taxation was fair; now they enthusiastically say that rich people shouldn't pay taxes. Look how many poor people are pissed off that covid aid payments are hurting business (because lazy-ass poor people won't go to work for shit wages when there's an alternative).

I've voted for a lot of Republicans over the years but never joined the church. 2020 was the first election year where I did not vote for one single Republican, and now it will be a long time before I vote for another one.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I've voted for a lot of Republicans over the years but never joined the church. 2020 was the first election year where I did not vote for one single Republican, and now it will be a long time before I vote for another one.

- DSK

 

Larry Hogan would get my vote for something, that is about it for me and Team R.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Larry Hogan would get my vote for something, that is about it for me and Team R.

The difficulty would be that if he went to DC, the McCarthy/McConnell machine would own his soul. And we know who owns theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, learningJ24 said:

The difficulty would be that if he went to DC, the McCarthy/McConnell machine would own his soul. And we know who owns theirs.

He won't get elected for anything, he has does not suck Trump off on command and thus is not getting into Team R, national division.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

He won't get elected for anything, he has does not suck Trump off on command and thus is not getting into Team R, national division.

My point as well.  Vote for the man, vote for the machine.  Liz Cheney is a LIBERAL Republican and she voted with the Eater of Souls 90% of the time.  If there were sane Republicans left, the machine would neuter them then grind them into the appropriate shape.  The same way corporate America creates corporate drones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The Second Amendment is more than 50 years old and does not mention AR-15s by name ;)

I always said the 2nd is for muskets,  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

I always said the 2nd is for muskets,  

Muskets could do a lot of damage, it is said that at 150 yards a ball could go through two soldiers. If the rate of loading had improved, it would have been a truly devastating weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Prelogar: "Ummm... OSHA covers a broad range of hazardous agents introduced into the workplace"  

Here's how OSHA defines hazardous agents: 
 

"Any biological agent and other disease-causing agent which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any person...will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions...or physiological deformations in such persons or their offspring. 

As implied by the plain language of this definition, the phrase "other disease-causing agents" refers to any substance not otherwise covered under subparagraphs (A)-(D) of the definition, which causes death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, etc."



https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1996-11-07

It may be a good idea, but still do not think that this gives OSHA the legal authority.  Read that link, and the text of the referenced rule.  It applies to "agents" released into the environment by or during industrial activity.  The examples given make it clear that this was the intent.  Viruses circulating among the general public don't seem to be in line with the text of the policy and claiming so is quite a leap.

Perhaps there are other OSHA regulations that could be more easily forced to fit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Muskets could do a lot of damage, it is said that at 150 yards a ball could go through two soldiers. If the rate of loading had improved, it would have been a truly devastating weapon.

At the risk of going down a Dogballs rabbit hole, a .580 or .690 round ball  at around 1100 fps initial velocity wouldn't have that kind of penetration. What I've read on Revolutionary war and Napoleonic suggests that 50 yards was considered working range.  Rifled changes the game significantly but it wasn't until the Minie ball with the expanding skirt that muskets became dependably lethal at range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, valis said:

It may be a good idea, but still do not think that this gives OSHA the legal authority.  Read that link, and the text of the referenced rule.  It applies to "agents" released into the environment by or during industrial activity.  The examples given make it clear that this was the intent.  Viruses circulating among the general public don't seem to be in line with the text of the policy and claiming so is quite a leap.

Perhaps there are other OSHA regulations that could be more easily forced to fit?

Why would biological agents released by workers during activity be exempt?

As an aside, I worked a few cases (contact tracing) where the working conditions were arranged in such a way that infection was almost assured. Both manufacturing and meat processing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:
49 minutes ago, valis said:

It may be a good idea, but still do not think that this gives OSHA the legal authority.  Read that link, and the text of the referenced rule.  It applies to "agents" released into the environment by or during industrial activity.  The examples given make it clear that this was the intent.  Viruses circulating among the general public don't seem to be in line with the text of the policy and claiming so is quite a leap.

Perhaps there are other OSHA regulations that could be more easily forced to fit?

Why would biological agents released by workers during activity be exempt?

As an aside, I worked a few cases (contact tracing) where the working conditions were arranged in such a way that infection was almost assured. Both manufacturing and meat processing.

Something I'd like to see the court examine... the rushed exemption from liability to it's employees on the part of so many "essential businesses" that kept running with no precautions and had huge outbreaks. The best publicized ones were the midwestern meat-packers back in late spring 2020.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Muskets could do a lot of damage, it is said that at 150 yards a ball could go through two soldiers. If the rate of loading had improved, it would have been a truly devastating weapon.

I would think not, the modern equivalent would be a 12 gauge slug. They do devastating damage, but aren't known for that kind of penetration at long range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Muskets could do a lot of damage, it is said that at 150 yards a ball could go through two soldiers. If the rate of loading had improved, it would have been a truly devastating weapon.

That’s why I have one in the kitchen. Never know who’s gonna try to rob me 1AF59843-B144-4591-A0A4-822AA69685F2.thumb.jpeg.27d454ad6bf4656405c40068270b28a4.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

At the risk of going down a Dogballs rabbit hole, a .580 or .690 round ball  at around 1100 fps initial velocity wouldn't have that kind of penetration. What I've read on Revolutionary war and Napoleonic suggests that 50 yards was considered working range.  Rifled changes the game significantly but it wasn't until the Minie ball with the expanding skirt that muskets became dependably lethal at range.

I don't want to open this up to something that would sidetrack the conversation. As you know, that is very easy to do around here. I found some info here http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html I am sure there are hundreds of sites with even more comprehensive stuff that I would find endlessly fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Very nice, does it still shoot?

I haven’t fired it. MIL did about 15 years ago. I believe it’s a Springfield 1861 

percussion cap   I wouldn’t even know where to get proper ammo for this thing  

not quite Rev War old but Civil War era 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dacapo said:

I haven’t fired it. MIL did about 15 years ago. I believe it’s a Springfield 1861 

percussion cap   I wouldn’t even know where to get proper ammo for this thing  

not quite Rev War old but Civil War era 

All the gear to shoot it is quite common.  First thing to do would be to change out the nipple, it's pretty unpleasant when they blow out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, valis said:

It may be a good idea, but still do not think that this gives OSHA the legal authority.  Read that link, and the text of the referenced rule.  It applies to "agents" released into the environment by or during industrial activity.  The examples given make it clear that this was the intent.  Viruses circulating among the general public don't seem to be in line with the text of the policy and claiming so is quite a leap.

Perhaps there are other OSHA regulations that could be more easily forced to fit?

I'm pretty sure that John Roberts is leading the charge on this. The federalist Society has had a target on OSHA for a very long time.  Scotus blog seems to think mandated vaccinations are gone but health care woekers will remain. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/court-seems-poised-to-block-vaccine-or-test-policy-for-workplaces-but-may-allow-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm pretty sure that John Roberts is leading the charge on this.[...]

I was not commenting on Roberts, or political motivations in general.  Just the letter and interpretation of the law.

Perhaps there's some Department of Commerce rule that could be used instead?  "Interstate Commerce" has been upheld to support all sorts of crazy non-obvious policies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would think not, the modern equivalent would be a 12 gauge slug. They do devastating damage, but aren't known for that kind of penetration at long range.

I think the equivalent was 11 gauge and effective range was lower as you said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three subtexts here that one needs to understand:

1. The long-standing project to hobble the OSHA, the EPA, and anything else that doesn't involve the DOD in any way possible.

2. The long-standing project to more specifically eliminate the regulatory power of the government totally. EVERY SINGLE THING will have to be law voted on by Congress, which is not remotely possible now or even back in Washington's time. First order for the new Congress - should avgas be dyed blue? Let's argue about that for a month and then we will move on to exactly what kind of flashlights are needed for night flight. By the end of the year we'll accomplish about 0.5% of what we needed to - for the FAA. The rest of the government will effectively not exist.

3. The long-standing annoyance of the entire Supreme Court over getting all the shit that Congress should take care of, but won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, valis said:

I was not commenting on Roberts, or political motivations in general.  Just the letter and interpretation of the law.

Perhaps there's some Department of Commerce rule that could be used instead?  "Interstate Commerce" has been upheld to support all sorts of crazy non-obvious policies.

See KIS response above. He literally hits the nail on the head.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

There are three subtexts here that one needs to understand:

1. The long-standing project to hobble the OSHA, the EPA, and anything else that doesn't involve the DOD in any way possible.

2. The long-standing project to more specifically eliminate the regulatory power of the government totally. EVERY SINGLE THING will have to be law voted on by Congress, which is not remotely possible now or even back in Washington's time. First order for the new Congress - should avgas be dyed blue? Let's argue about that for a month and then we will move on to exactly what kind of flashlights are needed for night flight. By the end of the year we'll accomplish about 0.5% of what we needed to - for the FAA. The rest of the government will effectively not exist.

3. The long-standing annoyance of the entire Supreme Court over getting all the shit that Congress should take care of, but won't.

Or the long standing annoyance of Congress of getting the courts to catch up with their cases as well, but won't. I see a fight coming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

See KIS response above. He literally hits the nail on the head.

 

That doesn't address at all the point I was trying to make, but sure, KIS probably has a more useful take on the larger issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any group of motivated, intelligent, and well educated people will be able to exploit the weaknesses in the US constitution for the purpose of destroying it. Until now people were fond enough of the constitution that they weren't all that motivated to destroy it. Times have changed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dacapo said:

I haven’t fired it. MIL did about 15 years ago. I believe it’s a Springfield 1861 

percussion cap   I wouldn’t even know where to get proper ammo for this thing  

not quite Rev War old but Civil War era 

I had one nearly identical to that, but in Walnut. It still worke, but I only tested it with a blank load, and a tiny bit of powder...

 I was told that it was really a shotgun, not a ball gun....

Either way, it was beautifully crafted, and very easy to hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, valis said:

That doesn't address at all the point I was trying to make, but sure, KIS probably has a more useful take on the larger issue.

That OSHA should not be regulating business with regard to potentially deadly contagious diseases?

The twin of your point is that the CDC has no authority to regulate businesses.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dacapo said:

I haven’t fired it. MIL did about 15 years ago. I believe it’s a Springfield 1861 

percussion cap   I wouldn’t even know where to get proper ammo for this thing  

not quite Rev War old but Civil War era 

Just shut the fuck up about your guns.  OK?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That OSHA should not be regulating business with regard to potentially deadly contagious diseases?

The twin of your point is that the CDC has no authority to regulate businesses.

- DSK

Well, do the laws as written and reasonably interpreted give them the authority?  Isn't this what the courts are supposed to rule on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, valis said:
31 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That OSHA should not be regulating business with regard to potentially deadly contagious diseases?

The twin of your point is that the CDC has no authority to regulate businesses.

 

Well, do the laws as written and reasonably interpreted give them the authority?  Isn't this what the courts are supposed to rule on?

"Reasonably interpreted" is a hole you could drive all the trains and all the ships in the world thru.

As -I- would interpret them? Yes, but then I worked for a living and expect a government to support and bring about a "reasonable" legal/economic framework for me to not get forced into a job that will kill me. A lot of businessmen have the opposite expectation.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

"Reasonably interpreted" is a hole you could drive all the trains and all the ships in the world thru.

Would you prefer "Unreasonably interpreted"?  This language, not mathematics, so somebody has to do the interpretation and it's not you or me.  By our rules, it's the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, valis said:

Would you prefer "Unreasonably interpreted"?  This language, not mathematics, so somebody has to do the interpretation and it's not you or me.  By our rules, it's the courts.

Whichever way it's interpreted, about 40% of USAnians will see it as unreasonable. Yes it should be up to the courts. Yes the law embodying various Federal agencies regulatory power should be clearly worded. Yes there is an entire political party devoted to wiping out regulatory power, regardless. Yes regulatory power is a proxy for patronage and used to punish businesses that don't hire enough/the correct lobbyists.

In the swirling mess, I take the guiding principle of greatest good as a guide. Can the law be interpreted to allow this regulation? Pretty clearly yes because it's been going on since the 1970s. Is the mandate going to benefit the most people? Clearly yes.

I'm not a judge though... well, not one with a court of law in front of me, at least.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/8/2022 at 12:24 PM, Not for nothing said:
On 1/7/2022 at 4:15 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

The Second Amendment is more than 50 years old and does not mention AR-15s by name ;)

I always said the 2nd is for muskets,  

The Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed with you but they were reversed by SCOTUS. I guess that's one of the reasons there's talk of packing the Supreme Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

The Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed with you but they were reversed by SCOTUS. I guess that's one of the reasons there's talk of packing the Supreme Court.

More about voting and privacy rights, but you be you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raz'r said:
7 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

The Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed with you but they were reversed by SCOTUS. I guess that's one of the reasons there's talk of packing the Supreme Court.

More about voting and privacy rights, but you be you.

You don't find that SCOTUS ruling upsetting? I figured you'd be another supporter of the Massachusetts view on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

You don't find that SCOTUS ruling upsetting? I figured you'd be another supporter of the Massachusetts view on that one.

Why should I find it "upsetting"

I'm more "upset" about them ignoring 1/2 the amendment, but nothing I can do about it, the Supremes have spoken. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Why should I find it "upsetting"

I'm more "upset" about them ignoring 1/2 the amendment, but nothing I can do about it, the Supremes have spoken. 

That's far from over. SCOTUS is currently considering the longstanding question of whether militias operated in the home only or not.

I'm still in the outdoor militia camp on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsflash Dudes - there is more to life than gunz. 

1 hour ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

hat's far from over. SCOTUS is currently

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Well we know the 2nd amendment applies to the home only so…

Colonial-era wives must have been remarkably understanding to allow all the practicing of military formations and gunfire inside their tiny homes. But that's the TeamD/gungrabby party line, so that must be accurate history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...