The 2nd Amendment and the US Supreme Court

[UserGoogol]

Canola oil being an important ingredient in many nutritious foods, the right of the people to rape shall not be infringed.

Non sequiturs are like a bathtub full of brightly colored electric power tools.

[eta] D'oh! (_8(|) Rape seed. Ok - same deal. Rape.noun is in no way synonymous with rape.verb. (You do say, "to rape," right?) One doesn't rape.noun: One raises or grows rape.noun. Still brightly colored power tools. Great try, though. [/eta]

Rape as a noun is a grammatically correct (or at least common) usage. People frequently say that people have a "right to health care" or a "right to guns" or whatever.

Racism being a historical problem in the United States, black men have often been hung.

Does racism being a historical problem in the US change the meaning, in any way, of the fact that black men have often been hung, or does it provide a singe, overriding reason for the event?

Hint: Remove the first clause and read the remainder of the sentence with a filthy mind. Also, perhaps I should have written "black men are often hung" to make it clear but I sort of played with the tenses to make it factually correct.

If the entire document in question had used and continues to use the word, "murder," repeatedly and consistently, with a definition of, "the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another", but for this one sentence, should we suspend the established meaning for one sentence?

But, ah, there's the rub: Are, "a ... militia," and, "the people," synonymous, and if they are, in which... well... direction... are they synonymous?

I actually suspect that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, and posted this partly "because I could." However, that's not the only way that the first clause could influence the interpretation of the second. It could easily influence the exact definition of the word "arms," which is a term not used in the rest of the constitution.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

"To rape," becomes a verb, and just because people say, "a right to <noun>," when they mean, "a right to <do something with noun>," just means they're lazy.

Lol - I didn't think about, "hung," that way, so you get a 34% and an 'A' for effort, because you can't really do away with the first clause. It does however, mean that the first clause can contribute disambiguation of the second.

Thanks for the insight!

... snip ... It could easily influence the exact definition of the word "arms," which is a term not used in the rest of the constitution.

That would be interesting. It's also primarily why I'm expecting some major waffling from the Supreme Court Justices. They don't want to have to mess around with all those, "no high-explosive devices in private hands," laws.

Oh - and - this was a challenge, but not to show it can't be done, but to provide me with a better perspective. As I said, all the things I could come up with were of the, '<reason>, <statement>' variety, and I needed a wider sampling. You done good!

 

[Brown]

Emotions are running high over this case, often to the point that there is a loss of good sense. The purpose of this thread is to discuss this case as adults, relying upon reason rather than dogma, and hopefully being or becoming well-informed about the legal issues.

Emotions are still running high about this case. I have read the entire opinion along with the dissenting views (quite lengthy documents), but I can say with some certainty that many people who assert very strong opinions have not actually read these documents.

I have read perhaps two dozen commentaries on the Heller case and I am astonished at the lack of grasp of the issues exhibited by some commentators, many of whom ought to know better. The preference of dogma over education and reason is not limited to any view on the political spectrum: there are those who like the Court's decision though they clearly haven't read it or made any attempt to understand it, and there are those who dislike the Court's decision though they clearly haven't read it or made any attempt to understand it.

 

[Brown]

Chances are we will hear nothing more until the decision is issued. I expect it may be one of the last decisions of the term, so look for it in June (around the time of the Amazing Meeting).

These predictions, which were 100 per cent correct, are better than any that were ever issued by any purported psychic.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If the remarks of Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts are any indication, there will be an effort to impute to the Framers an intent that has scant overt historical support. Basically, the words of the amendment itself (which are the best indicator of the Framers' intent) do not restrict the rights to military matters. Had the Framers wanted to restrict the rights to the military context, they could have easily done so, but they didn't. Instead, the Framers may have felt that the right of self-defense was a non-controversial pre-existing right (having been endorsed by the great William Blackstone), and that the best way to ensure a robust militia is to make sure that there is guaranteed individual liberty to keep and bear arms. To be on the safe side, the guarantee is much broader than might have been necessary. But this broad guarantee makes sense, because tyrants generally do not take actions against militias directly; rather, they vitiate militias by keeping the citizens unarmed.

Elegantly put. Thanks.

 

[Brown]

Solicitor General Paul Clement rose to argue in favor of the District of Columbia.

Clement also argued the Ten Commandments cases.

And I just met him.

He was a panelist at a conference I am attending in Washington DC, and after his presentation was concluded, I decided to go up and say hello.

To my surprise, he somewhat resembles me (before I grew my moustache and beard).

 

[Brown]

Clement also argued the Ten Commandments cases.

And I just met him.

In case you might be wondering why I thought this was such a notable event, consider this column from Dahlia Lithwick at slate.com: The $5 Million Man. It seems I'm not the only one who has followed Clement's exploits, even if I don't see eye-to-eye the position of his clients. With the subheadline "Paul Clement schools the high court on why some attorneys are worth every last penny," the column includes some of the most complimentary language ever provided to an appellate advocate:

The question for the court today is whether, under the relevant civil rights statute, a judge can bump up an attorney's fee award based on the quality of the lawyers' performance.
...
Paul Clement, who used to argue before the high court as President Bush's solicitor general, reappears on behalf of the plaintiffs' lawyers. Clement reportedly got a cool $5 million when he became head of King & Spalding's appellate practice, and since I would pay at least $2 million just to hear Clement argue a case, or read his telephone bill, I'm thinking they got their money's worth.
...
Clement seems to be rushing his argument toward the end, and I worry, briefly, that he's short-handing his points and racing to conclude before the red light goes on. But I should know better. He's just setting up his three-pointer for the court. And it's about perfect: "If you accept the petitioner's position that the lodestar is a ceiling, and not subject to adjustment then what you are telling lawyers is that the maximum amount they can make in a civil rights case is the minimum amount they can make in a different case. … You are also telling them something else, which is that there are multiple ways for district courts to cut down on the lodestar amount, either because you spent too much time on this or we didn't like your travel expenditures. And so there are multiple ways for those hours to be cut down." Why would any lawyer take on a civil rights case if the meter only runs backward?

That was the whole point of the statute, and that is all Paul Clement really needs to say. Sometimes, high-quality lawyers can make all the difference in the world. Clement is Exhibit A.

My conversation with Clement was fairly brief, but very pleasant. I told him that I had written about his work in a number of internet posts, and I mentioned that one of my goals was to have lay people deal with Supreme Court cases in terms of the actual facts and issues, and not merely talking points. Clement seemed to be interested that someone was making an effort to do this. He also asked me about my practice. He had never heard of my company, but when I mentioned the product lines we make, his face lit up and he had some very flattering things to say about our products.

 

[ZirconBlue]

He also asked me about my practice. He had never heard of my company, but when I mentioned the product lines we make, his face lit up and he had some very flattering things to say about our products.

Let me guess, you sell undewear. Specifically legal briefs.