And it has only slowly been incorporated to include the states. AFAIK, the 2nd amendment hasn’t been fully incorporated as most of the others have, but one of our legal experts can weigh in on the specific issue of there being an individual right to bear arms. Maybe one of the recent cases has done that.
The single issue gun owners were told that Trump and Trumps SCOTUS would be their bestest buddy and friend, but increasingly it seems not.
The 2nd was fully incorporated against the states in McDonald. That other lower courts have ignored this, and that SCOTUS has not addressed those lower courts doesn’t change the fact that from a legal perspective the 2nd is fully incorporated.
Why do you think it seems not? Gorsuch was confirmed and given he didn’t change the ideological balance, I wouldn’t expect the court to take up cases that it otherwise would not have. I think it’s fair to say that Gorsuch is probably more sympathetic to gun rights than anyone Clinton would have nominated. Here is a summary of all the nominations and appointments for Article III and IV judges.
It takes time for the impact of these appointments to percolate through the system. The jury is still out, but I’d prefer these picks than those of Clinton or any other hypothetical Democrat.
Since this got moved to Great Debates, could you expand why you prefer these picks other than gun control issues? Are there other issues that you feel are better addressed by conservative judges than the judges that Clinton would have picked?
I know a lot of single-issue gun owners that thought Trump would be a much better friend than Clinton. They’re still all quite convinced of that. So am I.
I don’t think any of us thought that a not-particularly-conservative New Yorker was ever going to be our “bestest buddy and friend”, as opposed to someone like Wayne LaPierre or Ted Cruz, but Trump is a significant improvement over Clinton.
If you really believe that omnipotence is EVER a good idea.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, “the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
And of course, the “parties” in question were not the state governments, but the Peoples of the individual states.
Once you resign final authority to such an oligarchy as the Supreme Court, then law and reason cease to exist; they are as arbitrary and final as the laws of physics.
But the wisdom of Jefferson seems to have departed with him. Even James Madison lost his reason before his death.
Ah, yes. And so easy to look up, I’m embarrassed that I didn’t do so. :smack:
Why have courts or a Constitution at all, then, if each party to a controversy can make judgments for itself?
Assuming the whole SCOTUS is simply partisan politics by another means …
In a 4- or 8-year Republican/Trump presidency there’s the opportunity to replace all or almost all of the D appointments. Especially if the replacements are chosen for youth and vigor as well as ideological reliability they can control the Court for 40 years.
There will always be a slow steady flow of suits alleging legislative overreach on one gun control issue or another. These particular cases aren’t the last of their kind.
I’m reminded of a joke:
Trump himself lacks the attention span to play a turn in tic-tac-toe. But the folks really in charge can play the long game in chess just fine.
The key thing about all successful slippery slope revolutions is to ensure the target gets past the point of no return before they notice.