sturg33
I
They live in a fantasy land and understand nothing
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
They live in a fantasy land and understand nothing
sturg33
I
Shocked that businesses would choose to pay $4k instead of months of maternity leave and lost labor
sturg33
I
Today's ruling is not about babies. It is about the constitutional law and what the federal government has the power to do
sturg33
I
Which demographic is the biggest victims of abortion?
Actually, yelling fire in a theatre is legal speech. The case where that line came from was in the 1910's in and got overturned in the 60's.
sturg33
I
This might be the most repeated lie in the mainstream today
Well, that and the meaning of "well regulated" in the 18th century.
You forgot this part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Doesn't get much clearer than that.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
Courts constantly adjudicate between competing interests. Freedom of speech isn't absolute. The right to bear arms isn't absolute. Yesterday's decision contained the customary acknowledgment that restrictions can be placed on bearing arms in "sensitive" spaces. The jurisprudence on public safety versus the right to bear arms has shifted over the years. And I daresay it will continue to shift.
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
Folks want the court to be something it’s not supposed to be.
Yesterday, Gillibrand (D-NY) said something to the effect of “instead of working to protect our communities, scotus made it easier for people to get weapons,” in response to the gun case ruling. Even if you’re generous and assume she’s 100% right, since when is it the job of SCOTUS to “protect our communities?” It’s tasked to rule on constitutionality. That’s it.
Kavanaugh writes what should be obvious, but apparently isn’t:
"The issue before this Court…is not the policy or morality of abortion" but rather "what the Constitution says about abortion," writes Kavanaugh in his opinion. And "the Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion.…The Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress."
The question regarding speech is this: "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
I would argue that shouting fire in a theatre would not produce such action. Even Justice Holmes, who gave the example, later believed that their ruling punished too much speech.
sturg33
I
As I've been saying,
Their entire political advancements have been completely reliant on an activist court to uphold.
That court doesn't exist anymore and their illegal agendas are being unwinded
There is quite literally nothing stopping the people to create generous abortion access through the DEMOCRACY™ process
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
employers can restrict the freedom of speech of employees...ask jack del rio...he paid his fine...freedom of speech is far from absolute
but with respect to guns...the jurisprudence was once very different than it is now...it is a pendulum that has swung very far in a certain direction and I suspect will eventually swing back the other way
Last edited:
57Brave
Well-known member
in the context of a " well regulated militia "
which is spelled out before another letter is written
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think what you see is what is referred to as " going straight to the money shot"
Absolutely. Theatres can make it against their rules for shouting fire. They can ban the individual that does this. Can send them to court for possible damages. But arrested? That's a big no.
Go read what "well regulated" meant in the 18th century. It's not what you think it means.
If you look at laws written at the time, especially at the state level, the use of a prefatory and operative clauses were not uncommon. A well regulated militia is a purpose of keeping and bearing arms. The right is literally "people to keep and bear arms". And it's not going to be infringed upon. Want to change it? Convince 2/3's of America that your opinion is correct.
Nearly every scholar will tell you "well regulated" meant proficiency and top-notch training. Not a thing to do with the government.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole that arms meant only muskets then we have a whole set of problems. For example, The 1st Amendment can only apply to 18th century standards as well.