• 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!

Gorsuch CONFIRMED!

Absentglare said:
Do you honestly need to understand how laws work?

So what happens is the people vote in elections for the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch drafts a law and votes on it, if it gets enough votes it goes on to the executive branch for approval. If the executive branch approves, it becomes law. Then, the judicial branch may weigh in and interpret the law for specific cases within the broader context of all other laws.

In effect, what is constitutional is what the court defines to be constitutional. The court has long upheld restrictions on the sale, distribution, usage, and even possession of firearms in various contexts.
Click to expand...

let me explain this to you again since you appear not to understand the point I am making

Years ago, I was watching a baseball game and a runner tried to come home on a "suicide squeeze play". Guarding the plate was probably the greatest defensive catcher in ML history-Johnny Bench. Bench tried to tag the runner and missed but acted like he did (he made no second effort to tag the runner) but instead threw out the bunting batter at first. The umpire called the runner out. now there was no instant replay even though film of the play clearly showed Bench missed the runner with his tag. Bench later admitted he missed the guy and couldn't catch him so he acted as if he did tag the runner and hoped he would decoy the umpire into calling the runner out

Now that out was recorded and prevented the other team from winning the game. You seem to think that we are precluded from arguing that the umpire missed the play and that we cannot factually argue that the runner was never tagged.

that is the point I am making. I know far better than you could imagine that the government has lots of powers that courts have not overturned. But that alone does not preclude honest and fair minded arguments that our courts OFTEN do what the umpire did in the case I recounted-they either make a mistake or in many cases-deliberately blow the call. and I will continue to point that out
 
Absentglare said:
Do you honestly need to understand how laws work?

So what happens is the people vote in elections for the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch drafts a law and votes on it, if it gets enough votes it goes on to the executive branch for approval. If the executive branch approves, it becomes law. Then, the judicial branch may weigh in and interpret the law for specific cases within the broader context of all other laws.

In effect, what is constitutional is what the court defines to be constitutional. The court has long upheld restrictions on the sale, distribution, usage, and even possession of firearms in various contexts.
Click to expand...

That's why the guntards blocked Garland so that Dumpy could put in a guntard-friendly judge like Gorsuch.
 
TurtleDude said:
let me explain this to you again since you appear not to understand the point I am making

Years ago, I was watching a baseball game and a runner tried to come home on a "suicide squeeze play". Guarding the plate was probably the greatest defensive catcher in ML history-Johnny Bench. Bench tried to tag the runner and missed but acted like he did (he made no second effort to tag the runner) but instead threw out the bunting batter at first. The umpire called the runner out. now there was no instant replay even though film of the play clearly showed Bench missed the runner with his tag. Bench later admitted he missed the guy and couldn't catch him so he acted as if he did tag the runner and hoped he would decoy the umpire into calling the runner out

Now that out was recorded and prevented the other team from winning the game. You seem to think that we are precluded from arguing that the umpire missed the play and that we cannot factually argue that the runner was never tagged.

that is the point I am making. I know far better than you could imagine that the government has lots of powers that courts have not overturned. But that alone does not preclude honest and fair minded arguments that our courts OFTEN do what the umpire did in the case I recounted-they either make a mistake or in many cases-deliberately blow the call. and I will continue to point that out
Click to expand...

Your appeal to authority is a fallacy in this case. The supreme court defines what is constitutional at the federal level; you get about as much say in defining it as i do. You know as well as i do that there's a general welfare clause in the constitution that could be used to justify almost any power the government could want. Our rights are rescinded as a matter of routine. We could talk about how this administration may threaten the seventh amendment, the first amendment, or whatever other section of the constitution- but you seem to be focused on one minor section of the constitution at the expense of all else. Worse yet, your myopic interpretation is in direct conflict with SCOTUS precedence.

We have long upheld laws that regulate the sale, distribution, use, and possession of firearms in various contexts. You generally can't bring a loaded gun into a courtroom. You can't sell loaded guns out to fifth graders.

Hopefully you can actually respond to the point i'm making rather than deflecting with another irrelevant and fallacious post.
 
calamity said:
That's why the guntards blocked Garland so that Dumpy could put in a guntard-friendly judge like Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a fair assessment. There were republicans who probably have turned down Gorsuch if President Obama had nominated him, simply for political reasons.
 
Absentglare said:
Your appeal to authority is a fallacy in this case. The supreme court defines what is constitutional at the federal level; you get about as much say in defining it as i do. You know as well as i do that there's a general welfare clause in the constitution that could be used to justify almost any power the government could want. Our rights are rescinded as a matter of routine. We could talk about how this administration may threaten the seventh amendment, the first amendment, or whatever other section of the constitution- but you seem to be focused on one minor section of the constitution at the expense of all else. Worse yet, your myopic interpretation is in direct conflict with SCOTUS precedence.

We have long upheld laws that regulate the sale, distribution, use, and possession of firearms in various contexts. You generally can't bring a loaded gun into a courtroom. You can't sell loaded guns out to fifth graders.

Hopefully you can actually respond to the point i'm making rather than deflecting with another irrelevant and fallacious post.
Click to expand...
what you are apparently unable to understand that people like me-who pushed the second amendment issue -is one of the main reasons why Heller came about. the start of this might have been marked by Sanford Levinson's seminal article in the Yale Law Journal in 1989 called "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" but Koppel and Cates and other second amendment scholars who didn't have the liberal prestige of Professor Levinson laid the ground work. And those of us who wrote letters, argued before legislative bodies and talked to our political office holders helped create what is now considered the "Standard model" in legal scholarship and the prevailing one in the Supreme Court.

so your silly diversions are dismissed . you also are apparently unable to understand the difference between state laws and federal intrusions.
 
calamity said:
That's why the guntards blocked Garland so that Dumpy could put in a guntard-friendly judge like Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

as I recall, when Hillary lost and I questioned you on it given your almost orgasmic support of Hillary, you demurred and claimed you didn't vote for Hillary and that you were glad that Trump would be filling that vacant seat.
 
TurtleDude said:
what you are apparently unable to understand that people like me-who pushed the second amendment issue -is one of the main reasons why Heller came about. the start of this might have been marked by Sanford Levinson's seminal article in the Yale Law Journal in 1989 called "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" but Koppel and Cates and other second amendment scholars who didn't have the liberal prestige of Professor Levinson laid the ground work. And those of us who wrote letters, argued before legislative bodies and talked to our political office holders helped create what is now considered the "Standard model" in legal scholarship and the prevailing one in the Supreme Court.

so your silly diversions are dismissed . you also are apparently unable to understand the difference between state laws and federal intrusions.
Click to expand...

You must forget where this conversation came from. It came from the laws that government can pass. I made no restriction simply on federal law. Furthermore, one of the examples i have repeatedly used was the restriction on bringing a loaded gun in a courtroom.

Apparently, you aren't even reading what i write. Your posts here are inherently dishonest- largely composed of fallacies like your ridiculous and repeated appeal to authority fallacy.
 
Absentglare said:
You must forget where this conversation came from. It came from the laws that government can pass. I made no restriction simply on federal law. Furthermore, one of the examples i have repeatedly used was the restriction on bringing a loaded gun in a courtroom.

Apparently, you aren't even reading what i write. Your posts here are inherently dishonest- largely composed of fallacies like your ridiculous and repeated appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy who was implying that I want to point a gun at the president???? Just because I disagreed with you?

So you're no paragon of truth, light and virtue.

:2usflag:
 
Vox said:
Aren't you the guy who was implying that I want to point a gun at the president???? Just because I disagreed with you?

So you're no paragon of truth, light and virtue.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

No, i was using it as an example of usage that there exists no right to do.
 
Absentglare said:
Irrelevant. It's something you obviously don't have the right to do. If you do that, there will be consequences.
Click to expand...

Could you be any more dishonest?

It's not something I want to do. I've made that clear.

You are not worth responding to and I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

:2usflag:
 
Vox said:
Could you be any more dishonest?

It's not something I want to do. I've made that clear.

You are not worth responding to and I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

I assure you that there is no dishonesty on my part. I used it as an example of something that's so ridiculous, it's obviously false. For some reason, you seemed to take it the wrong way- not my problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom