Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
39. Scalia didn't pose the question, nor could he
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:56 PM
Dec 2012

The question came to him. His job as a SCOTUS justice is to stand as one of 9 final arbiters to questions posed to the court. Regardless of what argument you think Scalia should have made, the only thing that matters is what argument he actually did make because that was the argument that was addressed by the dissent.

Scalia is an originalist who believes that the Constitution should reflect the ordinary meaning of a reasonable person who lived at the time it was written. Scalia has repeatedly said that if the Constitution doesn't say it, you can't infer it. So even if the 9th Amendment argument had any validity whatsoever (and I'm certainly not saying it does), it is a non-starter for both Scalia and Thomas who are both originalists. Scalia's argument was that the 2nd Amendment specifically included the right of self-defense, calling it "analogous" to other state constitutions which actually did specifically include such language (as you have already pointed out). Stevens, the other dissenting justices, and the best legal minds in the country tore Scalia a new asshole for his decision, and what was his response? Fuck you, I'm a SCOTUS justice and you're not. That was his answer which only proves what a complete fuckup he is. He's a hypocritical asshole who rails against "activist judges", then becomes one when it suits his ideology and simply ignores his critics. Both him and Thomas have no business as SCOTUS jurists and neither should have ever been confirmed. Even Bush knew what fuckups Scalia and Thomas are. That's why neither was made Chief Justice and never will be.

If it was, who would be the only people with guns ? orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #1
The same people who have them now Major Nikon Dec 2012 #16
Driving a car is a Privilege, owning a gun Should be the same,,,,Now . orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #18
It already is Major Nikon Dec 2012 #21
I agree entirely... CTyankee Dec 2012 #64
guns are not meant to overthrow governments in coup'd'etats. Tea party wants anarchy graham4anything Dec 2012 #26
The Tea party wants Antebellum . orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #44
If 2A were repealed, RKBA would be protected as an unenumerated right by the Ninth Amendment. nt jody Dec 2012 #2
First time I've seen this mentioned. Interesting. dkf Dec 2012 #3
Heller dissent by Stevens recognized RKBA for self-defense by PA(1776) & VT(1777). Constitution does jody Dec 2012 #5
I didn't get that out of the dissent Major Nikon Dec 2012 #17
Perhaps you and I brought different backgrounds when we read Steven's dissent. jody Dec 2012 #20
Try it with this part highlighted... Major Nikon Dec 2012 #25
OK but Stevens closed the door when he acknowledged RKBA as a pre-existing right. If not 2A then 9A. jody Dec 2012 #32
If the 9A argument is as strong as you claim, why didn't Scalia make it? Major Nikon Dec 2012 #35
Because Scalia asked a different question "We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition jody Dec 2012 #36
Scalia didn't pose the question, nor could he Major Nikon Dec 2012 #39
Regardless Stevens in dissent acknowledged RKBA for self-defense. If not 2A then 9a. nt jody Dec 2012 #40
Are you just repeating this from some gun nut site? Major Nikon Dec 2012 #42
Link to my post below the day Heller was released. Sorry you are not capable of understanding the jody Dec 2012 #48
You're confusing understanding with caring Major Nikon Dec 2012 #49
Stevens and Ginsburg IIRC both argued that Recursion Dec 2012 #58
There should be. It has to be started in each state, too. treestar Dec 2012 #4
And it would take only thirteen states to stop it in its tracks. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #43
Before the states can vote on it, Jenoch Dec 2012 #57
True, so it's a tall order treestar Dec 2012 #61
See my post at the bottom of this thread. Jenoch Dec 2012 #63
silly H2O Man Dec 2012 #6
No, but there seems to be some movement to narrow the Fourteenth HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #7
Any group proposing to abolish an inalienable/unalienable right they hate, ignore unintended jody Dec 2012 #8
The 14th Amendment doesn't provide unalienable rights... HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #9
McDonald v Chicago, Second Amendment incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth jody Dec 2012 #10
I'm not a lawyer...so the language inalienable/unalienable is unfamiliar HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #11
I'm not a lawyer either. I understand and agree with your point. nt jody Dec 2012 #13
Not in my lifetime. ZombieMan Dec 2012 #12
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Zoeisright Dec 2012 #31
Man, we are really trying hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, aren't we? NickB79 Dec 2012 #14
Spot on. All purple states would swing back red. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #47
National Don't Wanna Get Shot By A Rifle Association. Help collect 4 million signatures Dems to Win Dec 2012 #15
18 signatures so far. -..__... Dec 2012 #22
Which states Romney won are we looking at to ratify it? cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #19
It's quite easy. Obama44 and Hillary45 name 4-5 new justices who will do that w/Bloomberg financing graham4anything Dec 2012 #27
You think the NRA's membership and income will stay static NickB79 Dec 2012 #33
this is such convoluted logic. The louder one speaks, the quicker they are gone graham4anything Dec 2012 #41
I like your thinking here, graham... CTyankee Dec 2012 #65
Is it even possible to repeal an amendment in the Bill of Rights? Mister Ed Dec 2012 #23
Yes, anything in the Constitution can be ammended. cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #24
Anything can be amended Recursion Dec 2012 #59
Possible, yes. Realistically, not a snowball's chance in hell (and I don't mean a town in Michigan). Angleae Dec 2012 #66
I think it should be left as it is. sellitman Dec 2012 #28
Yeah, good luck with that. Quantess Dec 2012 #29
I think it needs re-defining Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #30
You don't need to repeal it duffyduff Dec 2012 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author davidn3600 Dec 2012 #37
If 2A were repealed, RKBA would be protected as an unenumerated right by the Ninth Amendment. nt jody Dec 2012 #38
Isn't it odd that the gunnies are now using a different amendment, ha ha ha ha graham4anything Dec 2012 #45
"Now using"? Where have you been? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #50
Show me where on gun threads that was mentioned before this incident graham4anything Dec 2012 #52
Here you go, these are just the ones I could be arsed to find: friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #60
I thought we were talking about the 9th amendment and I thought only 1-10 are what graham4anything Dec 2012 #62
It's evident you thought wrongly, now isn't it? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #72
See link below posted 27 June 2008 jody Dec 2012 #71
Exactly Major Nikon Dec 2012 #46
Then-Senator Obama said it referred to an individual right in 2008, before Heller was decided Recursion Dec 2012 #67
we need to insist that it be interpreted properly and accurately samsingh Dec 2012 #51
Only by people who are as bugnut crazy as the other end of the spectrum of this debate Android3.14 Dec 2012 #53
We need a new Consitution in general, this one has become too damaged MightyMopar Dec 2012 #55
Awesome post Berserker Dec 2012 #68
It was never a problem until a few years ago Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #54
Remember what happened in the 1994 elections over the AWB? Jenoch Dec 2012 #56
I see that going less far than the ERA. eom TransitJohn Dec 2012 #69
Nearly all state constitutions also guarantee gun rights Shrek Dec 2012 #70
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is there any movement to ...»Reply #39