did Thomas Ram a Ramrod into his Opinion
“But then, in 2022“, the Justice Clarence Thomas-authored Bruen decision suggested all gun regulations had to line up with the understanding of firearms the founders had when they wrote the Constitution. “
It seems to me that if Bruen is taken very literally, it implies that the 2nd amendment only applies to muzzle loading firearms: muskets, rifles, and pistols. The founders did not imagine AR15s. How could they have regulated (or forbid regulation of) semi-automatics?
Well here I am typing about a topic where I am ignorant and many people aren’t. Let’s go. There are small c conservative rules that all judges at least pretend to accept. Respect for precedent (and binding precedents except for the Supreme court) and respect for judicial norms and traditions. The GOP 6 seem to have decided that this implies large C conservatism — that we must have the norms and preferences of the founders (who are the continental congress, the constitutional convention, and the first congress and definitely not the framers of amendments 14, 15,16 and 17 (or obviously the 18th which was repealed and a toast to that).
Thomas wants to take us back to a time when he certainly would not be allowed to vote let alone be a supreme court justice (and he would, at the least have enslaved relatives). I have no idea why, but it is clear that his decisions (and those of the other 5) have little to do with the text they pretend to interpret and a lot to do with their ideology and political preferences (everyone knows this)..
I expect the authors of the Constitution would not have objected to bump stocks for muzzle-loading weapons. Nor would I, although I can’t imagine what possible use they would be to a well regulated militia.
Screen doors on a submarine …
@Ten,
LOL! It would keep the shrimp out, amirite?
You have correctly discerned that the court is political. Amy Coney Barrett din’t dispute that; only that they were “hacks”.
@Jack,
In the cases of Alito and Thomas, they are *both* political and hacks. They were both infected by the Scalia virus.
Joel:
They carried their views (as presented) well before they were appointed Justices otherwise. Presidents Daddy Bush (Thomas) and Boy Bush (Alito) would not have selected otherwise. Their conservative views were known at appointment. Their ignorant and extreme views were tactfully hidden by tactful commentary. Thomas as a replacement for Marshall was laughable. He was the opposite in beliefs.
Thomas:
“Thomas was repeatedly asked to comment on views he had expressed on several earlier occasions. Senators persistently asked the nominee to explain or elaborate on his statements concerning natural law, abortion, voting rights, affirmative action, prisoners’ rights and sexual harassment. Justice Thomas’ answers at time were found unsatisfactory. Some commentators found that his answers were sometimes off-point, the issue was side-stepped, or the response was in direct contrast to statements previously made during his tenure as Chairman of the EEOC. Throughout the hearings, Justice Thomas portrayed himself as ‘someone other than the often strident and controversial figure he had been in the Reagan and Bush administrations.'”
Alito: “Judge Alito singled out his work to restrict affirmative action and limit remedies in racial discrimination cases as areas that he was “particularly proud” of and stated unequivocally that he enjoyed advancing the positions of the administration and personally believed in those positions. Although he now claims that these were just words on an application, his record as a jurist reveals something different. The ideological views taken in the application and during his time in the Reagan administration are exemplified throughout his judicial decision making, where he routinely favors a reading of statutory and constitutional law that limits the rights of individuals and the power of Congress to protect those individuals.”
Just some thoughts and observations.
George, KGB, Jack, and today, Sam. Have you seen a doctor about the multiple personalities you have? By all means, you can have your musket.
Bill,
Maybe Angry Bear could use some technical medicine. I didn’t change my name; Angry Bear did.
Among the things the second amendment did was assure that slave catchers could be armed when they went into states where slavery was illegal.
It was primarily designed to assure states could maintain militia to put down uprisings like from slaves, for instance, as well as tax evading bootleggers.
JackD
i have no idea what it was designed for. The problem is today: what do the “gun nuts” want and can they be persuaded to accept some restricitions that might keep guns out of the hands of real nuts?
I dunno, but is it relevant that the South was able to call up and train an army to resist an invasion by a government they regarded as tyrannical without having a pre-existing “well organized militia”? and…did it do them any good?
it is worthless to argue that their guns have no “civilian” purpose. They don’t want them for a civilian purpose. personally I wish there were NO “civilian purposes.” But they are here and they are not going away. It is not smart to keep losing elections over the issue.
Dale; we discussed the amendment in the context of slavery once before. I’m not sure what you mean about losing elections over the issue. Can you say more about that? As far as history goes, I wonder why gun supporters forget the western towns where visitors had to turn their guns in to the sheriff’s office before they went to the saloon. A very practical regulation, even if local.
Jackd
almost everything has been done at least once before. i think i know that slave uprisings were on the minds of some Framers. doesn’t mean that was THE reason. Far as I am concerned it does not matter. “Original Intent” is a bogus issue, does far more harm than good.
I understand stare decisis. Apparently the Original Intent (unless modified by amendment) Justices don’t.
What matters is what “living generations” think it means or want it to mean. A decent respect for prdictabilty, common sense, and Very Important Basic Values would suggest that we not change the law with every new election , new Court, or new case. But not changing the law because of some dumb theory about original intent or “tradition” is obscene.
We..liberals…lose elections because, among other reasons, we anger the gun nuts. Since we are not going to change the law, we ought to shut up about it and try to sell those folks on better jobs, higher pay, regulation of the banks and honest government.
And we need to quit knocking down statues.
could say more, but it’s all been said before, unless you have something specific in mind.
Jack,
I think we are agreeing on your first clause. Combining our wording, I get states wanted to assure they were not dependent on the federal government to be able to put down slave uprisings and to recapture escaped slaves.
Certainly the second amendment became important when Thompson machine guns were used by those who flouted the 17th amendment, but I doubt that was in the minds of those who wrote the 2nd.
and the second was not on the minds of those who flouted the 17th (how did that prohibition thing work out us?)
or state supported religion, speaking of tradition?