Sure. To the extent that this is the case, it suggests some ostensibly reasoned basis for believing that there exists at least the possibility that the Supreme Court could and should once again reverse a prior ruling. Whether you or I happen to think this would be a good idea really has no bearing on the matter. What is of interest is how likely this is to happen. And the way I think one would weigh that is to look at the ideological makeup of the majority justices, the merits of the dissent, and how that stacks up against the direction in which societal values are moving.
For example, 30 years ago, not only did a number of states have anti-sodomy laws, but Bowers v. Hardwick reaffirmed their right to have them. It was less than 13 years ago that the Court declared that ruling to have been flat-out wrong. If such a ruling was still on the books, there’s little doubt that it could not withstand a challenge today. For similar reasons, the conservative and evangelical wish to have the Court wade into the moral issues of abortion as a means of overturning Roe v. Wade seems like a lost cause in this second decade of the 21st century, even with some of the nutjobs currently on the bench.
“Nutjobs?” While I agree that Supreme Court Justices are human and therefore have their foibles, on what are you basing that “diagnosis” other than their failure to agree with you? What is your personal background and expertise such that I should consider your analysis worth consideration? Yahoos like Cliven Bundy opine on Supreme Court decisions too. What makes your analysis worth my time?
Some liberals want to ban all guns, some do not. I personally want to ban all guns but I’d settle for restriction. Someone like Bernie Sanders does not want to ban guns. I think gun people are paranoid and that’s why they like guns so much, so they can shoot the dark shadows they see everywhere trying to take their guns.
Well, first of all, I wasn’t responding to you or writing for you, and if you don’t feel that what I post is worth your valuable time you’re free not to read it.
But for the record, and by way of clarification, my use of “nutjobs” was specifically in reference to Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, and I think you’ll find that in this view I have a lot of good and well-regarded company. I don’t know if Paul Krugman has used the word “nutjob” to describe any of them, but he’s not averse to using the word “crazy”. The Atlantic describes both John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy as “very conservative” which is notably not the same as crazy, a point they make to distinguish them from the other three, whom they describe as “a hard-right gang of three [who] … always insist on total triumph.” And I agree with that assessment of Roberts and Kennedy, whose politics are generally opposite to mine, so there goes your straw man theory that I’m just calling the other three nutjobs because I don’t agree with them.
So if you don’t like “nutjob” and prefer “crazy” and “incoherent”, please feel free to substitute.
The New Yorker also weighed in many times on this trio. They did a nice piece on the ACA decision in which said nutjobs vigorously dissented on the Court’s rejection of one of the most ridiculously frivolous lawsuits ever brought before it:
In case anyone missed it, the A.C.A. survived yet another politicized legal challenge, this time by a 6–3 margin, and Scalia, who was joined on the losing side by Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wasn’t happy. Amid successive pages littered with terms like “absurd,” “bizarre,” “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” “outlandishness,” and—invoking Will Rogers—“pure applesauce,” he fits in a third strained Shakespearean refrain: “Contrivance, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!” Has anyone done a statistical analysis of the use of exclamation points by the Justices?
They make a point of adding that the positive ruling on the lawsuit that this hard-right gang of three wanted, besides providing no benefit whatsoever to anyone because the whole thing was a contrived malicious piece of time-wasting frivolity, would have had the following negative impacts:
[ul]
[li]Health care would have become suddenly unaffordable for nearly seven million Americans[/li][li]The entire health insurance market would have been severely crippled, as John Roberts wisely pointed out[/li][li]The ACA law itself would have have become an inconsistent, incoherent mess[/li][/ul]
You know what, I think I just changed my mind. “Nutjobs” is too mild for this gang. I’ll have to come up with something stronger.
So, you agree with some other people who have used some similar terms and you heard the word strawman somewhere. If their mental faculties were unchanged, but they voted out of senility or whimsy the way you wished, would they still be nutjobs?
Perhaps rather than linking to articles, you could just give a concise explanation of how you differentiate between mental deficiency and simply not agreeing with you. I’m sure you can find plenty of articles calling them all sorts of names, but all that shows is that you know the basics of using a search engine.
And all that your response shows, posted within minutes after mine, is that you clearly didn’t follow any of the four links I posted and probably didn’t even have time to read the quotes. Try reading for comprehension and you’ll have your answer about why I feel as I do. Or not. I don’t really care. But at this point you’re only hijacking the thread.
Actually, it seems more accurate to say that the majority of Americans is willing to shrug and defer to the minority who really reallyreally insist upon easy access to guns.
The smart constitutional scholars write and submit an amicus brief to the court considering a question to which the particular position is relevant. The court decides what, if any, weight to give the arguments. Next question?
Switzerland is #4 in guns per capita.
Sweden is #9 in guns per capita.
Norway #10
France #11
Canada #12
Austria, Germany, Finland are also in the top 20 among 175 nations. Hardly banned.
In fact the only modern democracy in the bottom 20 is Japan.
Switzerland’s numbers include the military weapons citizens are required to possess for militia service. In any case, the rankings leave out the most salient fact: that the US is #1 by a mile. Even if you include Switzerland we have twice as many guns per capita as any other wealthy democracy.
The voters have spoken. Gun-banning legislators have lost their jobs. Pro-2nd legislators have taken their places. Gun-banning legislators have been recalled. Reality suggest that it’s the gun-banners who are in the minority. Otherwise, Obama wouldn’t have had to resort to executive actions/orders.
The Swiss also have a shit-ton of gun deaths. Rates of gun ownership unsurprisingly correlate pretty strongly with rates of gun death. This is also true state-by-state in the US.
Lots-O-Constitutional scholars from all sides of an issue submit briefs to the courts. The act of submitting an amicus brief does make it’s position legal, reasonable, or sound.
You’ve been whooshed. “Hardly banned” was precisely my point. I was using a technique called sarcasm. Other countries are able to contain gun violence through stringent and effective gun controls which keep them out of the hands of the wrong people, generally prohibit them in public places, eventually entrench a completely different cultural attitude toward guns. It is, in effect, a set of legal requirements under criminal law that requires people to do what gun nuts claim they do anyway as “responsible gun owners” except they don’t. Nobody has “banned” guns. The whole idea of “banning” is just a rhetorical invention of the gun nuts to spread FUD.
That said, your ranking is bit misleading without absolute numbers. The US has far more guns than any other modern democracy, with around one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country.
Unless you are laboring under the idea that it’s not a ban if there are other guns still allowed, it’s absurd to suggest that the idea of banning is a rhetorical invention. Do you think because you can have 1 gun, that it’s not a ban if other ones are prohibited? Because that’s nonsense.
There was this little thing…called the Assault Weapons Ban. It’s in the name.
Unless you are laboring under the idea that no weapons of any kind must ever be banned, no matter how dangerous, and no matter how useless for any legal purpose, then it’s your entire premise that’s absurd. I think to any person in possession of common sense the meaning of the term “gun ban” is clear. Just like if I say that a certain city street has a “car ban” it’s pretty fucking obvious that it means you can’t drive a car there. It’s not a “car ban” if it’s full of cars but 60-foot tractor-trailers or 300-ton earth movers are prohibited.
And as you well know the assault weapons ban no longer exists, but that’s not really the scary part. The scary part is the following partial list of weapons types:
… machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, disguised weapons like cane guns and pen guns, grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles and other heavy ordnance …
What is the significance of this list? To any person who is not insane, this would look like a list of prohibited weapons. It’s not. Not in the US of A, where virtually no weapon is prohibited. These are just BATF Title II weapons – if you want them, basically just fill out a form and pay a small tax. I can’t believe that you could actually support this or make excuses for it.
Is guns per capita the best measure to use? I have a sneaking suspicion that American gun owners are a bit weird in that some gun owners own a lot of guns. If one fetishistic gun owner has a stockpile of 300 guns in his basement, and no one else in his neighborhood owns a gun, then it’s a bit misleading to say that the neighborhood has one gun for every man, woman and child in it.
I wonder how things look when countries are ranked by what percentage of its residents are gun owners, rather than the total number of guns divided by the total number of people.
So you do think as long as some are allowed then a ban on some doesn’t constitute a ban. Semantically transparent. In any case the AWB is alive and well at the state level in CA, NY, and others.
The thing about NFA items that you mention - much is simply not available due to a combination of aupply, CLEO signify tequirements, and state level restrictions. And even so, have there been a rash of misuse of those items? Pining away for bans of items that harm no one doesn’t make the quest for more bans seem any more reasonable. This item has not been misused to cause harm - let’s ban it. But it’s not really a ban!
The Atlantic describes both John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy as “very conservative” which is notably not the same as crazy, a point they make to distinguish them from the other three,