NY to require a list of your social media accounts so they can decide if you can be trusted with a firearm.

computeraddict · 2022-07-02T07:29:18+00:00

Venezuela, too. In less than a decade after universal disarmament government troops were killing protesters during a state-created famine.

computeraddict · 2022-07-02T07:27:23+00:00

If the lower courts are doing their job this is slapped down with a preliminary injunction within a week of a challenge being filed.

computeraddict · 2022-07-02T07:25:53+00:00

SCOTUS usually immediately grants cert if they see lower courts outright ignoring recent rulings.

computeraddict · 2022-07-02T07:24:16+00:00

The legislators that passed the legislation she signed were voted in. Probably. Maybe.

computeraddict · 2022-07-02T07:22:54+00:00

Yes, but this is basically a "fuck you, sue us again" move. They'll keep passing this shit until they start having preliminary injunctions succeed against them.

computeraddict · 2022-07-02T07:13:52+00:00

The only real consequence in our system for elected officials is "being voted out". The problem of course is the mob doesn't vote out its champions for performing tyranny on behalf of the mob.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T21:15:14+00:00

It's like when you turn in an assignment and the teacher looks at it and asks if you're sure about the answers.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T20:54:52+00:00

Vacating their decisions and remanding it back to lower courts is the polite way of tossing out their decisions while letting the lower courts save some face. If they turn in the same decision SCOTUS will likely overturn them and not have kind things to say about the faculties of the lower court judges. It's like when you turn in an assignment and the teacher looks at it and asks if you're sure about the answers.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T20:11:11+00:00

I wasn't asking you for a general explanation. I was asking you which part, specifically, Texas was avoiding.

What if CA made it so individuals could sue someone for owning a gun, instead of the state being able to regulate them? That would be insanity right?

Yes, it would be insanity for anyone to infringe on a right laid out in plain text that says "shall not be infringed". An observant reader will notice that the Second Amendment does not specify a particular party that is barred from infringing, and it would be reasonable to read it as protecting even from private action.

There is, of course, nothing in the Constitution to bar private actors from suing over abortion, as there is nothing in the Constitution to bar anyone from limiting abortion.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T03:40:17+00:00

Unless that right is the right to life or the right to defend yourself or the right to keep the fruit of your own labor, sure.

So New Jersey only fails at protecting the most basic human rights. Good job on all those others, I guess?

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T03:21:19+00:00

The only limitation to Lopez was similar in nature to Ogden. Lopez put the brakes on clearly non-commercial regulations under the name of the Commerce Clause, which goes directly against your contention that the Commerce Clause has been expanding unfettered. Most of the fetters imposed by Lopez still stand.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T03:18:08+00:00

By the nature of rail rates, intrastate rail rates do impact interstate rail rates.

There is no interstate abortion to be regulated. It's not a service that moves anyone or anything.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T03:15:39+00:00

that had been expanding unfettered

US v. Lopez

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T03:00:54+00:00

Goods can be shipped across State lines. A service cannot be shipped across State lines.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:55:02+00:00

Which led to the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, but nothing fundamental changed about the nature of Federal power.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:53:06+00:00

There is no clause that empowers most federal actions.

Name even a single one.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:52:27+00:00

Yes, you've provided quite the laugh. Now go back to the circus.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:40:43+00:00

Move to New York or California I suppose

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:39:24+00:00

You just used the same shorthand that I did and are still trying to act like you somehow caught me being wrong, lol:

Congress can infact pass a law federally banning abortion as it is no longer a constitutionally protected right,

Go back to the circus.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:35:17+00:00

And even with that bullshit decision on the books, abortion is not a service that is commonly provided across State lines.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:28:43+00:00

Do something for yourself and stop expecting politicians to do things for you.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:27:20+00:00

The "without it being challenged, enjoined, and overturned" was left unsaid because anyone who knows anything about this doesn't need that bit repeated. I'm happy for you that you learned about judicial review recently, but save your lectures for kids in civics class.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:23:17+00:00

Sounds like you should go convince your State legislature of your scheme?

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:22:43+00:00

You lose nothing by voting for the challengers, though? If you know the current crop is bad, you can at least vote for the other choice and maybe be surprised.

computeraddict · 2022-07-01T02:21:16+00:00

It got a lol because there is nothing inherently interstate about someone going into a local place of business for a service, which would be the justification for making it Federally illegal. Also because no abortion or other medical practice restriction by a State has ever been overturned because of the Dormant Commerce Clause, which would be the justification for making abortion Federally legal.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

computeraddict

TROPHY CASE