Jordan Lund @ jordanlund @lemmy.one

Migrated to lemmy.world

---

Read more

Posts

63

Comments

1,445

Joined

2 yr. ago

We're getting our first "atmospheric river" tomorrow and I could not be more excited.

It's pretty clear you have no concept of how our system of government works.

The Supreme Court is the top tier of the Judicial Branch, the 3rd "Separate but Equal" part of our government.

You can't just decide "Well, I don't like you, I don't have to do what you say." Doing so cracks the very foundation of what our government is built on.

Same if someone decided to ignore the President (Executive Branch) or a ruling coming from the House and Senate (Legislative Branch).

The only difference is the President has the ability to sign or veto laws passed by Congress, and Congress can over-ride a veto.

There is no similar constraint on Supreme Court rulings. They are the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. That's their job. If you disagree with that, your options are 1) pass a new amendment or 2) a Constitutional convention.

Whether I like or dislike their definition of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant. It's THEIR definition. It's settled law. My liking it or disliking it doesn't change that.

Want to change it? Make sure we have Democratic Presidents exclusively for, oh, the next 20 to 25 years or so. Hope we don't have another block like they did with Merrick Garland.

Thomas (75) and Alito (73) are the next likely two to age out. If that happens under a Democratic President, it could shift the balance from 6-3 to 4-5. Given ages of court deaths and retirees that's probably 10-15 years from now.

The next three though are Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68) and Kagan (63). Say what you want about Roberts, but he has served as a key swing vote, siding with the "liberal" judges on multiple occasions. Losing any or all of them under a Republican President would lock in a conservative court long past my lifetime.

Kavanaugh (58), Gorsuch (56), Jackson (53) and Barrett (51) could all be with us for 30 years or more. So that's a baked in 3:1 disadvantage until maybe 2053? I'm 54 myself, so it's unlikely I'll live to see this.

I can't help you if you continue denying the reality of the situation.

The highest court in the country has ruled. That's it. It's over. They are going to make more gun rulings and I guarantee it will get worse.

The court DOES NOT CARE what you, or I, or anyone else thinks about their rulings, they don't have to because they know there's absolutely no check on their power. They can't be overturned, the House and Senate won't impeach them, and Biden will never pack the court (if he did, the next Republican President would just re-pack it the other way.)

They might get overturned in 50 years, like Roe did, but that seems highly unlikely given how the court is becoming more conservative, not less conservative. In my life there have only been 5 Democratic appointees to the court compared to 14 Republican ones.

I'm not asking you to LIKE it. I'm asking you to acknowledge that the court and it's rulings are not illegitimate. They are a function of our founding document and denying that is to deny what it means to be an American.

You can't do that without throwing out the Constitution, where all these entities are defined.

You're free to not like it, it doesn't change the law of the land.

Good question, no clue.

Could have just got orange masks...

How To Beat The High Cost of Living:
https://youtu.be/9-77VpXSygs

"The government shouldn't come between parents and their children!"*

*"Unless the parents are doing something we don't approve of!"

The ruling is the ruling, there's only one way to over-ride the Supreme Court and that's by passing a new amendment.

Here's what needs to happen:

Get 290 votes in the House. The same people who don't have 218 right now to fund the government.

Get 67 in the Senate. The same people who can't get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.

Get ratification from 38/50 states. In a country where 25 + DC voted Biden and 25 voted Trump. You'd need all 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.

Alternately, we could bag the whole thing and write a new Constitution, but again, the new one needs to get ratified by the states, and between the states who want to outlaw abortion and the states who want to outlaw guns, nobody is going to agree on it.

as long as the hospice medical director or other hospice doctor recertifies that you’re terminally ill.

And all it takes is one paperwork failure to lose coverage.

they aren't calling for banning ALL guns, they're calling for banning certain types of guns.

From a rights oriented perspective "that's how it starts". Especially for the folks online calling for an Australia style ban.

people are eventually just going to eliminate the 2A altogether, which would be harmful IMO.

That would require a new amendment and that's just not possible given the current governmental dysfunction. You'd have to start by getting 290 votes in the House, the same folks who needed 15 tries to get the 218 votes needed to decide who their own leader would be. :(

Instead of insisting that a sentence written hundreds of years ago means you can do whatever you want with no restrictions, maybe come up with a reasonable argument as to why it is important for our democracy for you to bear those particular arms.

People confuse semi-automatic rifles for fully automatic rifles. I was uneducated myself, until I went out and bought an AR-15 myself and ran through a training class with it. I felt I needed that experience to speak intelligently about it.

Like any other semi-automatic, it fires one time every time you pull the trigger. It's not dramatically different from other kinds of rifles, other than it automatically ejects the shell and loads the next round instead of the shooter having to do it manually with a lever, pump or bolt.

But man, have you SEEN some of those non semi-auto shooters?

Pump:

https://youtube.com/shorts/TUSjkwGopdw

Bolt:

https://youtube.com/shorts/I5P7qlix-hU

Lever:
https://youtube.com/shorts/CHJEwLtmLXw

Hey, I'm not here to kink shame. ;)

No Labels? Isn't that Andrew Yang's deal?

In Arizona, 15,000 people is enough to swing an election.

In 2020 the final count was:

Biden - 1,672,143
Trump - 1,661,686

10,457 vote difference... but that belies the bigger picture:

Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) - 1.5% - 51,465
Howie Hawkins (Write-in) - 0.0% - 1,557
Jade Simmons (Write-in) - 0.0% - 236
Gloria La Riva (Write-in) - 0.0% - 190
Daniel Clyde Cummings (Write-in) - 0.0% - 36
President Boddie (Unaffiliated) - 0.0% - 13

I think it's less likely that a 3rd party would draw from Biden or Trump and more likely they'd draw from the other fringe candidates, esp. the Libertarians.

I really didn't like how they disrespected Walter most of the time. If you weren't interested in his opinions, why do you ask him?

It just got super tiresome super quickly. I never finished the first season.

Hard disagree. The first season was just awful.

Every fucking episode:

(Something weird happens)
"Walter! Could this be related to your research?"
(Walter acts twitchy)
"WE HAVE TO GET THIS BACK TO MY LAB!!!"
(More weirdness)
Walter: "This is just like when x in the y in 19-dickety."
"Oh Walter! You so crazy!"
(Walter was right)
(Alien eating hot sauce)

Yup. You can't blindfold your kids.

It's not reverence, I'm telling you the way it is. You're free to ignore reality if you'd like. The line of "money isn't real, man!" people is over there -->

That's the job of the Supreme Court, I'm sorry you disagree, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

It could change if the court were to swing the other way, but it's only been getting more conservative in my lifetime, not less.

As a cat owner, this doesn't even look like a real print. It's too deep. Most likely a manufactured print done as a gag by whoever made the bricks.

Not according to the Supreme Court and they are the ones who decide this stuff:

McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right"