Your chart again conflates suicide and homicide. Anytime that happens, it’s pretty much propaganda. Would you say that we should limit magazine size to reduce suicide? It makes no sense. How about waiting periods for that 101st gun when I already have 100? Would that reduce suicide? How would restricting concealed carry reduce suicide? Or short barreled rifles, or .50 bmg, or mail order ammunition, or any number of restrictions like this, that are completely unrelated to suicide. The only way to conflate them and think of them together is if the restriction being discussed is a total ban.
I’m not really worried, generally. The difference I think, is that I don’t see firearm ownership as very dangerous so the calculus is different. I’ve been a gun owner a long time. I grew up shooting. My kids have grown up shooting (not as much as I’d like). It’s a tool that I would like to carry, and there is no amount I can train, pay, or anything to do so. As a result, the law must change and that’s not going to happen in CA. So SCOTUS it must be.
Don’t hold your breath. You’re ten times more likely to get the same 2 or 3 posters responding to this by implying you are some sort of ignorant right wing Trump apologist because you asked this question than your are to get a credible cite.
If we’re talking about whether owning a gun makes you safer or not (which is the context in which I bring up charts like that), total gun deaths is an absolutely valid figure. In the context of various other gun control laws like mag limits, yeah, it’s not useful. But if we’re talking the basic calculus, “Should I own a gun to protect my family”… No, it’s really simple - owning a gun does not make you safer. You can be as well-trained as you want; you’d better hope your kids don’t end up depressed or suicidal, because that’s way more likely to get them killed than they are to ever use a gun for self-defense.
But wait, it’s not just that you get the risk/reward a little skewed. It’s that you see your ability to have one on your person at all times as the most important issue. Everything else, from LGBT rights to immigration to whether the roads get fixed takes a backseat to you being able to own a firearm. I just cannot wrap my head around that.
The calculus isn’t 1 dimensional. It’s not simply that gun rights are more important than all else. When thinking about it, I also consider the trajectory of other issues. For example, I’m a solid supporter of LGBTQ rights. With the more recent moves in Obergefell and general perception across the country, my take is that things are moving in a positive direction. Immigration is less clear cut, but the impacts are pretty far removed. Plus I don’t think there is a clear path forward, and both major parties are terrible on the issue so there isn’t really something to support. Roads are a local matter mostly, unless you’re talking about highways. And even then, I care if bridges are falling down, but not so much about a few potholes.
But the right to carry is the right to effective self defense. That impacts me directly. It’s not necessarily the end all be all for me, but it is a threshold item. I will never support a politician that doesn’t support gun rights. But if they are bad in other ways then I wouldn’t support them either. It means I just don’t support many politicians. I wouldn’t vote for Trump, but the fact that he put two arguably pro gun rights people on SCOTUS - that’s a positive. I would have preferred someone else other than Kavanaugh, but you play the cards your dealt. I’ve described Kavanaugh as servicable.
If Trump were to lose in 2020, and nothing else major going forward changes, I’d say the two SCOTUS judges are about a wash, but leaning positive. If he were to be able to get one more judge on there and replace RBG or Breyer, then I’d say that’s a big net positive for his presidency, all else being equal.
While it may be true that a Justice on the SCOTUS may not have any direct influence, what do you think a moron like trump would make of that? He would pull every string he could to get him appointed, that’s what.
Also madsircool, suggesting that “President Pence would pardon him” would mean that trump is out of office and at the mercy of other DA’s that are after him. Pence can’t do anything about state charges. Trumps best bet to stay out of prison is to stay in the Oval Office, and I think even he knows that.
Kavanaugh specifically stated in the paper everyone points to that there is no law protecting the president from prosecution. From his experience with the Starr investigation he talked about how it might be a good law to have and to leave any punishment with congress and impeachment until after the term. His own words a decade before he was nominated state that there is no protection against prosecution.
He is not in any position to make such a law. I have not heard of any such laws written or proposed or in committee. Clinton v Jones is still the precedent and there are no grounds to rule on anything else. SCOTUS can’t just make proclamations out of thin air.
No, he can’t invent new proclamations. But if trump heard that he would support NOT being able to prosecute a sitting president, that would certainly catch his ear and garner his support. After all, trump cares about nothing other than his own skin.
My question to Kavanaugh would be “What would you do if the president murdered someone? Should we just let him serve out his term?”
Well this thread is about what we think is going to be the effect of Justice Kavanaugh. It’s not about what was going through Trump’s mind when he nominated him.
You can read the paper yourself it’s easy to find. It’s not a judicial decision it’s just a think piece. He doesn’t say that presidents should be immune to prosecution in perpetuity but that it may be a good idea for congress to enact a law stating that lawsuits and prosecutions be deferred until after the term. In the paper it states that if there was heinous conduct (like murder) he would be quickly impeached and prosecuted. BTW he wrote this because he saw the negative impact on the Clinton presidency.
No one is proposing that law so it’s just an acedemic exercise. In that theoretical world that law might limit the deferment to misdemeanors and civil lawsuits or maybe to some other level of crime. But there is no such law and I doubt I’ll see one in this lifetime. If such a law is enacted and it’s constitutionality is questioned then we have a good idea where he stands. But that law that doesn’t exist is not going to heard in front of the court.
I don’t really have much else to say here, but… this. This is just stunning to me. We get one fragile victory, so it’s okay to vote for the party that is still actively fighting against LGBTQ rights.
I got nothing. Maybe Miller wants to say something, I dunno.
I think you’re understating the support for gay rights. First of all, even if you’re limited to Supreme Court rulings, Obergefell isn’t the only one that has favored the cause of gay rights, it’s just the one that, in particular, makes of marriage a right subject to the 14th Amendment. Earlier Supreme Court rulings that have been pro-LGBTQ rights include Lawrence v Texas and US v Windsor. Beyond the US Supreme Court, almost 40 State Supreme Courts or Legislatures have ruled that their state must treat same-sex couples equally to mixed-sex couples for marriage before Obergefell rendered further state-specific action moot.
I believe Bone is correct that the momentum is clearly on the side of LGBTQ rights even with a Republican president, Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and a conservative Supreme Court.
I expect some of the conservative judges to shift to the middle on some issues. That includes Kavenaugh.
Collins’ speech explained the extensive research she put into Kavenaugh’s judicial record. His record speaks for itself. She believes he’s conservative but not extremely so.
I wish there had been more responsible reporting and analysis of his record. Collins has the resources to do extensive research and I’m willing to accept her conclusions.
We’ve already seen John Roberts support health care. He’ll probably veer off from the Conservatives on other issues too.
Judge Kavanaugh supported the ACA in a ruling. He may do so again on the Supreme Court. It depends on the circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court judges think independently. They aren’t in lock step with any party.
I don’t have strongly held opinions on most of this.
I think Roe will be weakened, but not outright overturned. That’s pretty much what’s been happening for a while though.
I am pretty confident that the court will not find Social Security unconstitutional. If they did, I predict that we’d have a new constitution sometime in the following week that rectified the situation.
I’ll expect more lawsuits going against pro-gun participants being appealed to SCOTUS with a similar decrease in appeals by anti-gun claimants to keep any loosening of laws to a minimum.
This has already occurred once in District of Columbia v. Heller.
They weren’t willing to risk the “good reason” requirement being struck down nationally. Though I expect to see a similar case called the other way and appealed to SCOTUS from the Ninth Circuit Court.