[52m37]

The Dubious Sources of Some Supreme Court 'Facts'

Interesting read on SCOTUS and amicus briefs...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

[emsbronco]

Interesting. Unfortunately, lately the Supremes seem to be forgetting their most important "amicus brief"...the Constitution and its amendments.

 

[Hardrada]

Interesting. Unfortunately, lately the Supremes seem to be forgetting their most important "amicus brief"...the Constitution and its amendments.

Not to mention the federalist papers that provided the entire backing discussion.

 

[Christos12]

Interesting. Unfortunately, lately the Supremes seem to be forgetting their most important "amicus brief"...the Constitution and its amendments.

And unfortunately they share that negative attribute with the courts here in the northeast. When Mother Jones magazine sways a jurist more than the opinion of law enforcement you know that further arguments are really just a waste of time.

I greatly enjoyed the liberal butthurt over the Hobby Lobby case. Birth control isn't a health insurance issue, it doesn't cure or treat any disease. And sex not for the purpose of procreation is by definition recreational, and you can pay for that on your own dime, not mine. Anyone with internet access, the latest I-phone and cable TV can fork up the 6 bucks a month.

 

[emsbronco]

Not to mention the federalist papers that provided the entire backing discussion.

Don't forget the discussions during the state's Constitutional ratifying conventions. Lot's of background info in those discussions as well.

 

[goperfect]

It really is a shame that the Judges don't seem to find it necessary to look at the documents provided by the Founders. You know them, documents like the freaken Constitution for example.

I have never been all that smart, I try to use the smarts that were given to me, this entire Supreme Court thing seems pretty damn easy; just follow the Constitution, do not attempt to make it fit in your own little world, seems easy?

 

[Mosinitis]

I interpret NY gun laws with the same care Supreme Court interprets Constitution.

 

[Christos12]

I interpret NY gun laws with the same care Supreme Court interprets Constitution.

Gotta be careful.

I grew up in the 60's, there was a time that WW2 bring back submachine guns were being openly sold at the Schenectady gun shows. MP-40's, M-3's. No one really cared. Not even the cops who were hanging around.

It's a witch hunt now, so I suggest putting the black hat in the closet for the near future. Along with anything else.

 

[spat]

And unfortunately they share that negative attribute with the courts here in the northeast. When Mother Jones magazine sways a jurist more than the opinion of law enforcement you know that further arguments are really just a waste of time.

I greatly enjoyed the liberal butthurt over the Hobby Lobby case. Birth control isn't a health insurance issue, it doesn't cure or treat any disease. And sex not for the purpose of procreation is by definition recreational, and you can pay for that on your own dime, not mine. Anyone with internet access, the latest I-phone and cable TV can fork up the 6 bucks a month.

If I'm forced to pay for their fun, they should be forced to pay for mine. Can you imagine the reaction if congress passed a law requiring employers to supply us ammo ?