Supreme Incompetence on the High Court!

Tweet

Today we are celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling concerning Washington DC's ban on personal ownership of guns. By a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and specifically, the 2nd Amendment. So what did the 4 dissenters have to say to defend their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the rights of We the People? "The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens--namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern." They attempted to redefine what a "well regulated militia" is. "Although the Court's discussion of these words treats them as two "phrases"--as if they read "to keep" and "to bear"--they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities." By definition, a militia is NOT part of the military. The fact the dissenters can't tell the difference between a military and militia not only shows their incompetence in law, but in the English language itself. The National Guards of the states have been identified as "militias", but since we are funded, trained, deployed and commanded by the Federal components (although they did start out as such) they cannot be defined as militias. In reading Justice Stevens's dissent, it seems he uses the terms "militia" and "military" interchangeably. They are also living under the delusion that, since the 2nd Amendment mentions militias, that limits the right to own guns to militias. How? Are we required to quarter Marines, Sailors or Airmen against our will simply because the 3rd Amendment only mentions "soldiers"? Why not, maries and sailors existed at the time of the writing of the Amendments. Using the dissenting's form of "logic", if they wanted to include Marines and Sailors, they would have said so. Such "logic" is in direct violation of the 9th Amendment... "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What the dissenting justice tell us is that they couldn't care less what the U.S. Constitution actually says, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment or whose rights the Bill of Rights protects. What they care about is their own opinion of guns. In their incompetence and judicial activism, they seek only to further petty, personal biases and their contempt for the parts of the U.S. Constitution they wish weren't there. Sorry Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Breyer and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, your butts weren't placed behind the High Bench to serve yourselves, they were placed there to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Today we are celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling concerning Washington DC's ban on personal ownership of guns. By a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and specifically, the 2nd Amendment. So what did the 4 dissenters have to say to defend their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the rights of We the People? The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens--namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern. They attempted to redefine what a "well regulated militia" is. Although the Court's discussion of these words treats them as two "phrases"--as if they read "to keep" and "to bear"--they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities. By definition, a militia is NOT part of the military. The fact the dissenters can't tell the difference between a military and militia not only shows their incompetence in law, but in the English language itself. The National Guards of the states have been identified as "militias", but since we are funded, trained, deployed and commanded by the Federal components (although they did start out as such) they cannot be defined as militias. In reading Justice Stevens's dissent, it seems he uses the terms "militia" and "military" interchangeably. They are also living under the delusion that, since the 2nd Amendment mentions militias, that limits the right to own guns to militias. How? Are we required to quarter Marines, Sailors or Airmen against our will simply because the 3rd Amendment only mentions "soldiers"? Why not, maries and sailors existed at the time of the writing of the Amendments. Using the dissenting's form of "logic", if they wanted to include Marines and Sailors, they would have said so. Such "logic" is in direct violation of the 9th Amendment... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. What the dissenting justice tell us is that they couldn't care less what the U.S. Constitution actually says, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment or whose rights the Bill of Rights protects. What they care about is their own opinion of guns. In their incompetence and judicial activism, they seek only to further petty, personal biases and their contempt for the parts of the U.S. Constitution they wish weren't there. Sorry Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Breyer and Ruth (Buzzi) Ginsberg, your butts weren't placed behind the High Bench to serve yourselves, they were placed there to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Today we are celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling concerning Washington DC's ban on personal ownership of guns. By a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and specifically, the 2nd Amendment. So what did the 4 dissenters have to say to defend their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the rights of We the People? The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens--namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern. They attempted to redefine what a "well regulated militia" is. Although the Court's discussion of these words treats them as two "phrases"--as if they read "to keep" and "to bear"--they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities. By definition, a militia is NOT part of the military. The fact the dissenters can't tell the difference between a military and militia not only shows their incompetence in law, but in the English language itself. The National Guards of the states have been identified as "militias", but since we are funded, trained, deployed and commanded by the Federal components (although they did start out as such) they cannot be defined as militias. In reading Justice Stevens's dissent, it seems he uses the terms "militia" and "military" interchangeably. They are also living under the delusion that, since the 2nd Amendment mentions militias, that limits the right to own guns to militias. How? Are we required to quarter Marines, Sailors or Airmen against our will simply because the 3rd Amendment only mentions "soldiers"? Why not, maries and sailors existed at the time of the writing of the Amendments. Using the dissenting's form of "logic", if they wanted to include Marines and Sailors, they would have said so. Such "logic" is in direct violation of the 9th Amendment... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. What the dissenting justice tell us is that they couldn't care less what the U.S. Constitution actually says, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment or whose rights the Bill of Rights protects. What they care about is their own opinion of guns. In their incompetence and judicial activism, they seek only to further petty, personal biases and their contempt for the parts of the U.S. Constitution they wish weren't there. Sorry Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Breyer and Ruth (Buzzi) Ginsberg, your butts weren't placed behind the High Bench to serve yourselves, they were placed there to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United St