Parkland School Shooting

Julio3000 said:
Moral culpability and legal culpability? Not my province, exactly, though I have my opinions. But, again, if you think that, for example, the type of weapon used in the most recent massacre shouldn't have been legally in the hands of the shooter, it would seem to follow that you could be arsed to apportion a measure of blame for the folks who've actively and successfully campaigned for its availability.
Click to expand...

Er, yeah, that's dubious. I'm not comfortable saying that if Cruz didn't have access to an AR-15 this all would have been prevented. I believe that instituting a ban would be a step in the right direction, a step that should go in tandem with other measures of broad progressivism.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Have you not paid the slightest bit of attention to Supreme Court nomination proceedings, maneuvers in Congress, the voting on the cases dealing with political issues?
Click to expand...

Do you know who wrote the majority opinion on Citizens United?

He also wrote the majority opinion on Obergefell.

And was in the majority on Heller.
 
SCOTUS is fine. SCOTUS is not a political tool. SCOTUS is one of the last bastions of relative integrity in government.
 
bravesnumberone said:
So your points about one justice, Kennedy, is supposed to rebuke my point?
Click to expand...

I don't think you really had a point, aside from the asserting that the nomination process has become more contentious, which is true, but speaks nothing to the quality of the justices or the decisions that they've made.
 
Hawk said:
I don't think you really had a point, aside from the asserting that the nomination process has become more contentious, which is true, but speaks nothing to the quality of the justices or the decisions that they've made.
Click to expand...

It isn't even just the nomination process. It's a damn campaign issue. Feel free to look at the 2016 election as just one example. I'm not saying they're unintelligent or unqualified, but you're living in fantasyland if you don't see the whole process as a political tool.

Republicans: "We need to make sure we're appointing conservative justices."
Democrats: "We need to flip the court."
 
Hawk said:
SCOTUS is fine. SCOTUS is not a political tool. SCOTUS is one of the last bastions of relative integrity in government.
Click to expand...

If their side was In charge and had five judges on the court he wouldn’t think SCOTUS was Politicized.
 
Hawk said:
^

this would be a rebuke of your own insinuation.
Click to expand...

His voting has been reliably on the conservative side of other issues. So no, it doesn't. That he was heavily ridiculed and called a traitor only speaks to my point that the whole thing is steeped in politics.
 
bravesnumberone said:
It isn't even just the nomination process. It's a damn campaign issue. Feel free to look at the 2016 election as just one example. I'm not saying they're unintelligent or unqualified, but you're living in fantasyland if you don't see the whole process as a political tool.

Republicans: "We need to make sure we're appointing conservative justices."
Democrats: "We need to flip the court."
Click to expand...

My man, there is a pretty major difference in saying that the SCOTUS is a political tool and saying that the nomination process is a political ****show.
 
bravesnumberone said:
His voting has been reliably on the conservative side of other issues. So no, it doesn't. That he was heavily ridiculed and called a traitor only speaks to my point that the whole thing is steeped in politics.
Click to expand...

It demonstrates that Justices make decisions on the basis of law and not on politics. That they are not 'owned' by anyone.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yes, you've made yourself clear. I wait with bated breath for your suggestion of how ending gun-free zones will also mitigate mass shootings.
Click to expand...

My limited research has shown no instance of shootings at campuses that allow guns on premise.

That's a start, anyways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top