School Shooting in Knoxville

#926
#926
What is more likely:
A. Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, 22 years on the Court at the time, 24 years on the bench, Valedictorian at Georgetown, Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law, authors and publishes a landmark opinion that will forever be part of his legacy and it is internally inconsistent. The opinion is sent to other judges for review, where this fact slips by the four similarly impressive concurring justices and their combined 20 law clerks, all of whom have similar educational bona fides to the judges themselves. The case is then published and nobody picks up on this error for 13 years until it is discovered by an internet message board poster on VolNation.com.

B. Northdallas40 is wrong.
 
#927
#927
RockyTop85 said:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar

Justices write their own opinions. If it is not in quotes, it is the work of the authoring Justice assisted by his or her clerks. If another justice of the majority has something to add, it is published in a concurring opinion. This is known.



Made up reductionist nonsense.



Wrong.



Wrong.


Wrong.
Click to expand...
The law clerks write the opinions and did so in this case. Here is Scalia’s actual opinion and it clearly supports what I said.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Your protests are found wanting ... as usual. You’re dismissed pettifogger 🤡
 
#928
#928
RockyTop85 said:
What is more likely:
A. Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, 22 years on the Court at the time, 24 years on the bench, Valedictorian at Georgetown, Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law, authors and publishes a landmark opinion that will forever be part of his legacy and it is internally inconsistent. The opinion is sent to other judges for review, where this fact slips by the four similarly impressive concurring justices and their combined 20 law clerks, all of whom have similar educational bona fides to the judges themselves. The case is then published and nobody picks up on this error for 13 years until it is discovered by an internet message board poster on VolNation.com.

B. Northdallas40 is wrong.
Click to expand...
C. Northdallas40 properly articulated Scalia’s opinion and provided links while pettifogger Rockytop85 replied with a weak ass WRONG.

Womp womp. 🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#936
#936
I’ve got the score at 0 correct statements, 13 wrong statements, and 3 misleading/incomplete statements (I’ll amend to partial credit for saying clerks write the decisions although that’s still misleadingly incomplete) all without counting the repetitive attempt at a “victory lap.”

This is impressively bad, even for you. I bet you can get to 20 before the next page, though.
 
#938
#938
RockyTop85 said:
I’ve got the score at 0 correct statements, 13 wrong statements, and 3 misleading/incomplete statements (I’ll amend to partial credit for saying clerks write the decisions) all without counting the repetitive attempt at a “victory lap.”

This is impressively bad, even for you. I bet you can get to 20 before the next page, though.
Click to expand...
LMFAO this is a new level of blocking reality for you. I’ve provided Scalia’s opinion and quoted his own words which support my statement. Your own “score” says you win. Ok...

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

😂🤡😂🤡😂🤡😂🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#939
#939
RockyTop85 said:
So you’re saying all the judges wrote it because it’s the “opinion of the court?”
Lol.
Wrong.
Look it up.
0-14-3.
Click to expand...
No ive linked Scalia’s actual opinion and quoted the actual opinion. I conceded I was guessing when I replied to Luther as I knew the clerks normally authored the opinions.

And you’re parsing a statement I conceded as a guess at the start to try and save face.

But let’s get to the crux of the matter there. Luther provided a quote from the DECISION not Scalia’s OPINION so it’s moot anyway.

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

😂🤡😂🤡😂🤡😂🤡
 
#942
#942
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[24] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.

Literally didn’t even bother to check Wikipedia.

Option B looking more and more likely.
 
#943
#943
RockyTop85 said:
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[24] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.

Literally didn’t even bother to check Wikipedia.

Option B looking more and more likely.
Click to expand...
LMFAO so the link I provided on Scalia’s opinion is indeed his own words and I’ve properly represented his opinion. Since he wrote it. Thanks for affirming that.

😂🤡🤷‍♂🤡😂🤡🤷‍♂️🤡
 
#944
#944
III


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession *2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26]

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar
 
#946
#946
RockyTop85 said:
III


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession *2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26]

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar
Click to expand...
Yep. Finding I is where everything I have stated comes from. Findings II and III are the word salad of “but we have to reaffirm NFA 1934 or the Feds are screwed”

Finding I clearly states the prefatory clause has no teeth and the operative clause defines the right. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Then they go on in Findings II and III to limit the right from finding I. Let me end by quoting the last sentence from your post.

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

They literally said after their word salad on how they can limit the right that they can’t change their interpretation of the right... from finding I... which clearly put the teeth on the operative clause.

What’s your win loss record pettifogger?
 
#948
#948
NorthDallas40 said:
Yep. Finding I is where everything I have stated comes from. Findings II and III are the word salad of “but we have to reaffirm NFA 1934 or the Feds are screwed”

Finding I clearly states the prefatory clause has no teeth and the operative clause defines the right. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Then they go on in Findings II and III to limit the right from finding I. Let me end by quoting the last sentence from your post.

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

They literally said after their word salad on how they can limit the right that they can’t change their interpretation of the right... from finding I... which clearly put the teeth on the operative clause.

What’s your win loss record pettifogger?
Click to expand...

I’m sure this made it to 20 but I’m not reading past the part where you admit to not understanding 3/4 of the opinion.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just admitting that up front.
 
#949
#949
RockyTop85 said:
I’m sure this made it to 20 but I’m not reading past the part where you admit to not understanding 3/4 of the opinion.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just admitting that up front.
Click to expand...
LMFAO what’s clear is I understand the opinion more than you. I’ve even outlined the conflicting sections.

Have you considered applying to be Trump’s caddie? He’d love the way you keep score! 🤡

What’s your win/loss record pettifogger? And id love to see you in court. I bet the judges LOVE you 🤣
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top