[Scamp]

Here in the USA we are free to buy guns or not buy guns. Unless you are a prohibited person.
If anyone is afraid of owning a gun, or shooting themselves, they are free to not have a gun.
Then of course they are at the mercy of those with guns.
The police are under no obligation to protect citizens. Courts have ruled this.

[Puffer Fish]

The Bruen decision invalidated dozens of state and federal laws, ...

As a Pro-Constitutional conservative, I actually agree with you... or partially agree with you.

But there are several points to bring up.

First, it's harder to have sympathy when the courts are interfering to give people individual rights.
I mean, yes, the courts are interfering, but they are interfering to prevent the state's interference in an individual's choice and rights. (It does remind one a bit of how in older times the Southern states were complaining about the federal government's interference in Slavery)

Remember, the Left-leaning courts tried to do this with abortion and numerous other issues. Precedent has been set.

Second, this "can of worms" was opened up when the Supreme Court begin deciding that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to Constitution) applied against the states. That set a precedent.

Thirdly, I notice how every time the Left complains about something on the Right, it seems it is actually something the Left is even more guilty of. Could this be a case of (psychological) projection? Just blame the other side of everything in the hope that it will distract people from seeing those same type of faults on your side.

I see the media repeatedly criticising the Conservatives for not following principles. But the thing is, a much greater share of those on the Left don't have these principles! So it seems if the Left is going to play "dirty" then Conservatives are going to be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, if they try to be honourable and stick ardently to their principles. Hardly a fair fight, is it?

You talk about "Rule of Law". Well there are certainly all sorts of examples of Democrat-appointed judges departing from rule of law, often in ridiculously absurd ways. I don't think I even need to point to any specific instance, it's commonplace. I've posted many threads about it in this forum. Of course the mainstream media doesn't focus the public's attention on these cases, or frames the cases in such a way that the problems are not highlighted.

I could write much more about each of these points, but this just touches on the different issues connected to this.

Last, I noticed in your post how you made very little reference to what the case was actually about. It seemed as if you did not actually want to argue over the details of the case, to debate whether that decision truly was not following "rule of law". Instead you just wanted to accuse the other side of not following rule of law, which was what nearly all of your post says.

It seems a bit disingenuous to spend so much time accusing the other side of something, with so little explaining why you think they are arguably guilty of doing that, or inviting any debate about that.

To use a comparison, it would be like if I accused Democrats of "fascism" and trying to seize power because of the cases against Trump, but didn't provide any explanation whatsoever about what those cases were about or why exactly I believed those cases were not following the true principle of rule of law.
That wouldn't be honestly setting the foundation to have a real discussion.

[Puffer Fish]

“It’s made-up history. No sense of judicial humility. No sense of letting governments work out their problems.”

That's not exactly a fair characterisation of how things would work. In most of these Democrat states, the leaders are not very open or willing to listen to the perspectives of the other political side.
How the problems get "worked out" is sort of mob mentality with plenty of emotion, tyranny of the majority. Usually the Speaker of the state House of Representatives will not even entertain any real debate or allow any discussion to happen about the issue.

[late]

Do not worry. A bunch of liberals like @late
own guns in the USA. .

I think it is a psychological issue folks.

I sold them 40 years ago, and never felt a need to replace them. I've spent an ungodly amount on bicycles, but they've been a big part of my life. I took a very expensive bike to Italy and rode from coast to coast. Great trip.

It's not psychological. Culture is part of it, but mostly it's too many guns and not enough brain cells.

[late]

That's not exactly a fair characterisation of how things would work.

If anything it's understatement.

Btw, he's talking about Federalist judges.

[Steve_American]

WTF ---

Nobody here in this thread or this site seems to care that the MAGA House can [it is claimed] refuse to seat new Dem House members who won their elections fair and square just to keep power after they lost the election. And then steal the Presidency too.

WTF.!.!.!
.

[Steve_American]

Thom Hartman explains just how the House MAGA Repub majority can refuse to seat the newly elected Dems in Jan. 2025, so that the Repubs illegally still have a majority on Jan. 6th so they can throw the Pres. election into the House where they can "legally" vote Trump or other Repub Pres. even though he/she lost the election fair and square.

.

[Rich]

Professor Friedman, of N.Y.U., said, “When you combine overruling with no appreciable change or explanation other than that the membership of the court has changed, what you have is naked power.”

It looks like the Rule of Law and democracy will die at the same time.


https://archive.is/khFlb#selection-4925.0-4925.195

The usual narcissistic hysteria from the Liberals. Of course the laws change when the membership of the court changes. The Liberal has no principle here, just a grandiose sense of self entitlement. He never complained about judicial activism when it was Liberal judges. The rule of Law will continue to be applied as it always has, selectively, with fear and favour and sometimes with extreme prejudice.

[late]

The rule of Law will continue to be applied as it always has, selectively, with fear and favour and sometimes with extreme prejudice.

We are saying the same thing, which is the death of Modern jurisprudence. In this case, that goes back to the 1800s. But for some reason doesn't include Loving v Virginia (ask Thomas about that one).

The other aspect of this is the corruption, which is new.

[Tainari88]

We are saying the same thing, which is the death of Modern jurisprudence. In this case, that goes back to the 1800s. But for some reason doesn't include Loving v Virginia (ask Thomas about that one).

The other aspect of this is the corruption, which is new.

I was never a Pollyanna about American jurisprudence. They were the ones who decided not to apply the US Constitution to Native American tribes and Puerto Ricans and Guamanians, etc. because it would open the door to lawsuits that meant that illegal seizures of property and lack of civil rights extended to people whom they never wanted to have valid votes in the US Congress or Senate to have? It meant they were a bunch of frauds from Day One Late.

But liberals always make excuses for their shitty realities of imperialism. If you were truthful about what actually went down in American history and how any progress made had to be made by people getting shot and killed, jailed, and harmed and fighting like hell for every tiny inch of justice? You might get somewhere.

Continuing on with dreams of the corruption is NEW is a bullshit response Late.

A lot of people within the US system of justice and law and order were denied rights from the very beginning in order for the ones in power to remain in power. That is a fact. Not in dispute.

So corruption was always there. It just has gotten more obviously political with the recent additions to the SCOTUS.

The Democrats have to take responsibility for their weak and indifferent actions. Never should have allowed the Republicans to delay the appointment of a liberal leaning Supreme Court Justice. Letting them play games and politics overconfident in their ability to manipulate political discourse in the USA is for the incredibly arrogant only.

If you lost control of the SCOTUS it is because you failed to kick ass politically a very long time ago, because the liberals thought their reign was air tight and delivered. You can't have that attitude at all in politics. Nothing is signed, sealed and delivered. You need to fight for your agenda.

If you had been worried about justice you would have noticed how polluted the monied lawyers and all the rest of the assholes who practice law in the USA have been doing all this while. It is about those who have the most money make the rules and get the power. Not about justice. Period.