• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can’t do that without throwing out the Constitution, where all these entities are defined.

    You’re free to not like it, it doesn’t change the law of the land.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which continues to be an irrelevant circular response to “this was a bad ruling made by an illegitimate court that didn’t fulfill the obvious reasons for the 2nd Amendment”. The Constitution doesn’t say guns for self-defense are untouchable. 5 politicians in robes did, multiple of which have clear evidence of corruption. This particular court can be packed or reformed or even disregarded without even touching the Constitution.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t help you if you continue denying the reality of the situation.

        The highest court in the country has ruled. That’s it. It’s over. They are going to make more gun rulings and I guarantee it will get worse.

        The court DOES NOT CARE what you, or I, or anyone else thinks about their rulings, they don’t have to because they know there’s absolutely no check on their power. They can’t be overturned, the House and Senate won’t impeach them, and Biden will never pack the court (if he did, the next Republican President would just re-pack it the other way.)

        They might get overturned in 50 years, like Roe did, but that seems highly unlikely given how the court is becoming more conservative, not less conservative. In my life there have only been 5 Democratic appointees to the court compared to 14 Republican ones.

        I’m not asking you to LIKE it. I’m asking you to acknowledge that the court and it’s rulings are not illegitimate. They are a function of our founding document and denying that is to deny what it means to be an American.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your problem is you don’t want to have a conversation about the 2nd Amendment, you want to reinforce the status quo because you like having guns.

          they don’t have to because they know there’s absolutely no check on their power.

          There literally are. Tons of checks. The court’s power extends only as far as its legitimacy. If Biden defied the Court on something and the Court says “you can’t do that”, all that is is words. That’s literally how it was designed. The only thing making the corrupt Court a super legislature that can just make rules up law whole cloth is people like you saying “well, the court says so and they’re the unitary decider”.

          And it doesn’t have to be moderate timid Biden that defies them. Gavin Newsome and the California legislature can defy the Court tomorrow and their only recourse is whining about in in the op-ed pages. Unless the people of California believe that the Court is legitimate and vote them all out for it, that’s the balance of powers alive and well. You may not like it, but that’s just how the system works.

          I’m asking you to acknowledge that the court and it’s rulings are not illegitimate.

          LOL. No. Shitting on the legitimacy of a corrupt Court is a good thing and an essential step toward correcting the mess we’re in.

          They are a function of our founding document and denying that is to deny what it means to be an American.

          Rolling over for tyranny when the founding fathers very deliberately separated enforcement from legal judgement is not what it means to be an American. This is literally stuff written by the founding fathers in discussing the design of the nation. Yielding full rule making authority, whether in a misplaced devotion to authority or learned helplessness, is what they were fearful of. On its own, as a coequal branch, it’s nothing.

          Hamilton: “Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

          It’s not like the Founding Fathers just never considered that a Court could be bad and power hungry, or that supermajority impeachment alone would always be a simple remedy for such. They were quite explicit in that the Court is not all powerful because their only power is that of judgement and judgement alone doesn’t do anything. Their power relies on adherence by the other branches, and such power exists only if the people will punish the elected branches for challenging them.

          John Roberts isn’t worried about the belief in the legitimacy of the court because he just wants historians to praise his tenure, he’s worried about it because if they lose it, they can and will be defied. And that’s a consequence there by design.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s pretty clear you have no concept of how our system of government works.

            The Supreme Court is the top tier of the Judicial Branch, the 3rd “Separate but Equal” part of our government.

            You can’t just decide “Well, I don’t like you, I don’t have to do what you say.” Doing so cracks the very foundation of what our government is built on.

            Same if someone decided to ignore the President (Executive Branch) or a ruling coming from the House and Senate (Legislative Branch).

            The only difference is the President has the ability to sign or veto laws passed by Congress, and Congress can over-ride a veto.

            There is no similar constraint on Supreme Court rulings. They are the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. That’s their job. If you disagree with that, your options are 1) pass a new amendment or 2) a Constitutional convention.

            Whether I like or dislike their definition of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant. It’s THEIR definition. It’s settled law. My liking it or disliking it doesn’t change that.

            Want to change it? Make sure we have Democratic Presidents exclusively for, oh, the next 20 to 25 years or so. Hope we don’t have another block like they did with Merrick Garland.

            Thomas (75) and Alito (73) are the next likely two to age out. If that happens under a Democratic President, it could shift the balance from 6-3 to 4-5. Given ages of court deaths and retirees that’s probably 10-15 years from now.

            The next three though are Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68) and Kagan (63). Say what you want about Roberts, but he has served as a key swing vote, siding with the “liberal” judges on multiple occasions. Losing any or all of them under a Republican President would lock in a conservative court long past my lifetime.

            Kavanaugh (58), Gorsuch (56), Jackson (53) and Barrett (51) could all be with us for 30 years or more. So that’s a baked in 3:1 disadvantage until maybe 2053? I’m 54 myself, so it’s unlikely I’ll live to see this.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I can’t believe when confronted with deep theory of government from the Federalist papers you forged on to repeat a grade school description of government. Go read the Federalist papers.

              So that’s a baked in 3:1 disadvantage until maybe 2053? I’m 54 myself, so it’s unlikely I’ll live to see this.

              And when confronted with the realization that politely waiting for deaths under an unbroken reign of Democratic regimes means you will literally live the rest of your life under a corrupt and illegitimately stacked conservative court, you dutifully knuckled under. My god.