• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Breaks Courtroom Silence

many natural rights-as the founders believed them to exist, were codified and recognized in the Bill of rights.

and guess what, the right the founders intended to recognize and DID with the second amendment doesn't allow lots of the Democrap crap

Codified, they become REAL rights rather than some subjective thing one pulls out of the ether.
 
You only have one problem. Natural rights are the foundation for the US system. You are incorrect in supposing that the only rights are those codified, they are codified to be protected, not recognized.

You can defend yourself, but you don't get to decide limits. If you believe you can defend yourself without a weapon that is fine, you do not get to decide for me or anyone else. You don't value your life enough for me to leave that decision in your hands.

Walk into a court of law and have your attorney argue a "natural" right that is not codified. How do you think that will work out?
 
Codified, they become REAL rights rather than some subjective thing one pulls out of the ether.

and you miss the point. we see all sorts of dishonest mis-interpretations of the second amendment based on dishonest Bannites trying to pretend that the second amendment says something it doesn't

the founders intended the second amendment to ban the government from interfering with the natural right of free citizen to be armed.
 
Walk into a court of law and have your attorney argue a "natural" right that is not codified. How do you think that will work out?

How do you think we got Miranda rights?
 
and you miss the point. we see all sorts of dishonest mis-interpretations of the second amendment based on dishonest Bannites trying to pretend that the second amendment says something it doesn't

the founders intended the second amendment to ban the government from interfering with the natural right of free citizen to be armed.

lol

A "natural" right to a Glock? Funny.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 
lol

A "natural" right to a Glock? Funny.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

gee that is a silly attempt at mis-interpretation


the only possible intention the founders had as to the scope of the second amendment was to protect a natural right of free citizens to be armed. the crap about the second amendment being a "right" to serve in to the militia is idiotic

as is the claims the second amendment is "limited" because that is based on the lie that the second amendment "grants or gives" us rights and that grant is LIMITED (by what they never can really explain)


in reality, we had the right to begin with at a federal level and before the government existed. the second amendment is a blanket restriction on the federal government to interfere in an area it was never given the proper power to act in
 
I just read that he wasn't talking, that Alito is a ventriloquist ...
 
Last edited:
From the codified right against self-incrimination?

There was no expectation of having your rights explained to you before being detained. Search and seizure law is being shifted ALL the time.

How about gay marriage? How about expansion of equal protection? Every time we amend the constitution it is recognizing there is a right that needs to be codified to make there is no government interference with it. We don't codify it to recognize it, we codify it to protect it from government interference and over reach.
 
most likely, he's asking the questions that he imagines Scalia might have asked. i don't agree with him on much and i find him to be hackish, but i can't fault him for doing his job. he's also probably sad about the loss of a friend.

I once heard Scalia say something to the effect of Thomas didn't need to ask questions because there were so many being asked already, and Scalia asked a lot of questions. He probably needs to ask now, since Scalia isn't there to ask those questions.
 
I once heard Scalia say something to the effect of Thomas didn't need to ask questions because there were so many being asked already, and Scalia asked a lot of questions. He probably needs to ask now, since Scalia isn't there to ask those questions.

i agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom