2
   

MEETING WITH USSC JUSTICE SCALIA TOMORROW

 
 
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 06:46 pm

Tomorrow, I 'm attending a meeting with USSC Justice Antonin Scalia,
with the Federalist Society on Long Island. I hope to ask him the reason
that the Court used the "due process" clause to incorporate the 2nd Amendment
against the State governments, instead of rehabilitating the "privileges or immunities" clause
of the 14th Amendment in McDONALD v. CHICAGO 561 U.S. 3025 in 2010.

The worst that can happen is nothing. It 'll be fun.





David
 
raprap
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 07:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Ask him about how strip searches can be justified for traffic infractions. Ask him about how a supposedly conservative constructionist court can ignore the fourth and fifth amendments. Ask him if he thinks if Justice Thomas is capable of an intelligent thought. Ask him if the other nine amendments in the bill of rights are as important as the 2nd. Ask him about freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. Ask him why the USSC bothered wander into the Florida 'hanging chad' dispute in 2000.

Rap
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 07:50 pm
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
Ask him about how strip searches can be justified for traffic infractions. Ask him about how a supposedly conservative constructionist court can ignore the fourth and fifth amendments. Ask him if he thinks if Justice Thomas is capable of an intelligent thought.

Ask him if the other nine amendments in the bill of rights are as important as the 2nd.
Thay r NOT, because that one is EXISTENTIAL.
Without that, the others cannot operate.


raprap wrote:
Ask him about freedom of speech and the separation of church and state.
Ask him why the USSC bothered wander into the Florida 'hanging chad' dispute in 2000.
Rap
There may be a limit concerning how many answers
I m gonna get from him.





David
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 08:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
BS David--if I were to consider one amendment of the bill of rights to be Existential it would be the first. The second is, in MHO a militia clause, because if it meant what the NRA claims it means--I should be able to legally construct and own a small thermonuclear device.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 08:24 pm
@raprap,
Plus the drone to carry it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 10:27 pm
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
BS David--if I were to consider one amendment
of the bill of rights to be Existential it would be the first.
So, in your vu,
we will cease to exist:
if we don't have a free press,
or go to Church
or if we cannot assemble for redress of grievances.

Did our ancestors not exist b4 the Bill of Rights was enacted ??






raprap wrote:
The second is, in MHO a militia clause,
because if it meant what the NRA claims it means--I should
be able to legally construct and own a small thermonuclear device.
Is there proof that the Founders
(who just won a violent revolution)
did not mean that principle????
That is a question, not an assertion.

I accept that your opinion is what u tell us that it is,
but that is inconsistent with known history,
some of which is expressed in the HELLER decision of 2008.
Remember, there were NO police in the USA
when the Bill of Rights was enacted, nor in England, either.
Everyone was expected to take care of himself
from the violent depredations of man or beast.

Remember also, that the 2nd Amendment's text was parsed
by respected, professional grammarians,
who found it to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
whose existence was pre-assumed
.
The HELLER decision recognizes this.
This is consistent with the holding of the USSC
in US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 (1875)





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 11:04 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
There may be a limit concerning how many answers
I m gonna get from him


Considering that the event is only a hour long, and it is sold out, you will be doing great to even get to speak to him. Let us know how it goes, most of us can not hobnob with SCOTUS Justices you know, so you be our eyes and ears MKay?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 11:21 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Plus the drone to carry it.
The 2nd Amendment defends the rights to KEEP and BEAR arms (carry arms).





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 11:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:
There may be a limit concerning how many answers
I m gonna get from him
hawkeye10 wrote:
Considering that the event is only a hour long, and it is sold out, you will be doing great to even get to speak to him. Let us know how it goes, most of us can not hobnob with SCOTUS Justices you know, so you be our eyes and ears MKay?
I intend to get there early, for a good seat.





David
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2012 01:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
As a free people--Yes. If we lose the freedom to speak. or print our opinions or assemble to discuss our grievances we will lose our existence as a free people.

And the freedom of religion is the freedom to go to church, or not; to believe in a god or gods, or not; with equal aplomb and with no fear of repercussion---something that many supposed conservative constructional constitutionalist politicians (Bush, Santorum) seem to forget. (This Nation id NOT a Christian nation--Adams to the Musselmen).

Might I remind you that the freethinking Masons that founded this country selected E Pluribus Unum as the national motto, not the obviously anti first amendment "In gawd we trust" of the 1950's.

So yes, the first amendment is Existential for us AS A FREE PEOPLE. The 2nd only guarantees us the freedom to shoot ourselves in the head as Slaves.

RAP
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2012 02:19 am
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
As a free people--Yes.
That is NOT the question.
U have switched in a different question.
The issue was existence; I know because I wrote it.


raprap wrote:
If we lose the freedom to speak. or print our opinions or assemble to discuss our grievances we will lose our existence as a free people.
Of course, but that 's a completely different question.




raprap wrote:
And the freedom of religion is the freedom to go to church, or not; to believe in a god or gods, or not; with equal aplomb and with no fear of repercussion---something that many supposed conservative constructional constitutionalist politicians (Bush, Santorum) seem to forget. (This Nation id NOT a Christian nation--Adams to the Musselmen).

Might I remind you that the freethinking Masons that founded this country selected E Pluribus Unum as the national motto, not the obviously anti first amendment "In gawd we trust" of the 1950's.
Despite your quotation marks, u have distorted what was said.
It was "In God we trust" not what u tried to get away with.



raprap wrote:
So yes, the first amendment is Existential for us AS A FREE PEOPLE.
U substituted freedom for existence.
U twisted what I said.
U r a true liberal (with the twisting).


raprap wrote:
The 2nd only guarantees us the freedom to shoot ourselves in the head as Slaves.

RAP
Those are very stupid things to say.
I 'm pretty sure that u do not believe them; know better
and being hypocritical here.





David
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2012 02:49 am
@OmSigDAVID,
But that is why I consider the Bill of Rights as a whole--not single units.

Remenber the 2nd amendment, but don't forget the other nine.

“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” ― Joseph Stalin

Rap
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2012 03:02 am
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
But that is why I consider the Bill of Rights as a whole--not single units.
Thay R single units
(regardless of the fact that thay were enacted and ratified as a block).



raprap wrote:
Remenber the 2nd amendment, but don't forget the other nine.
I have never denigrated ANY of the amendments.
I have pointed out that ONE of them is existential.
Then someone switched out my reference to existence, changing it to freedom.





David



0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2012 09:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
There may be a limit concerning how many answers
I m gonna get from him
hawkeye10 wrote:
Considering that the event is only a hour long, and it is sold out, you will be doing great to even get to speak to him.
Let us know how it goes, most of us can not hobnob with SCOTUS Justices you know, so you be our eyes and ears MKay?
OK. I enjoyed the meeting with Justice Scalia; tasty breakfast of pastry, eggs, meats & fruits.
I asked him if he coud conceive of any reason against rehabilitating the "priviliges or immunity" clause.
He was not as clear in his response as I 'd like,
but I admit that my own ability to hear was at fault.
The best that I coud make out: he said something like
that the "due process" clause woud do it too
(which, obviously, it has). He made some assertions of the value
of not appearing to be extremist in Constitutional interpretation.
He mentioned the potential of the USSC getting packed,
as Roosevelt unsuccessfully attempted to do.
( Of course, it is super-obvious that he coud not discuss obamacare. )

Someone else asked something about the 2nd Amendment.
I did not hear the entire question. Justice Scalia said that
in HELLER, the court did not say that u can ONLY carry guns in the home,
but in fairness, he also referred to HELLER 's obiter dicta,
qua the States regulating the right to bear arms in the streets.

This reveals his state-of-mind as of today.
Note that in argument of either HELLER or McDONALD,
he did comment to Alan Gura, Esq, something about
keeping guns "out of the hands of criminals," as if that were possible.
The impossibility of that has not yet been argued,
nor has the Constitutional imperative of "equal protection of the laws"
qua the right of self defense. (If Martha Stewart opts to walk to the corner
for a quart of milk, she still has the Constitutional Right to pack defensive heat.)
I bet that Rosa Parks woud agree that the right to defend her life
from the predatory violence of man or beast is more important
than better seating for a few minutes on a bus.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2012 10:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Wow, OK...I had this perception of you as being an ace hot shot lawyer with a mensa IQ, but now I dont know. How do you account for your not being able to follow Scalia?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2012 02:45 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Wow, OK...I had this perception of you as being an ace hot shot lawyer with a mensa IQ, but now I dont know.
How do you account for your not being able to follow Scalia?
Hearing trouble; I did not hear all of his words.
That is among the reasons that I retired.

There is one other thing:
I have a feeling that there is a little undefined something
concerning which, on this particular point, Justice Scalia
prefers not to be 1OO% forthcoming, but I don 't know what it is.





David
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2012 07:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Did he say anything about trampling on the 4th and 5th amendments by the conservative members of the USSC in "Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington"?

Ruling Strips Away Dignity and Privacy Rights

Guess carrying that 2nd amendment exetential right ends if you decide to keep that firearm in a body orifice, huh?

Rap
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » MEETING WITH USSC JUSTICE SCALIA TOMORROW
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 09:12:01