BBO Discussion Forums: supreme court - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

supreme court

#1 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-June-26, 16:16

as so often happens, another 5-4 decision

Guns and the gov't
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#2 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2008-June-26, 17:30

Meh. Has to be a line somewhere. D.C. crossed it, nothing in there to make me think Chicago did.

I am very displeased by Roberts et al getting all pissy because the habeus corpus decision left the method up to the individual judge (to decide if there was sufficient evidence and if it should be shared with the defense), and then they make this crappy ruling where it's so vague that nobody can tell if Atlanta crossed the line.

So I liked the decision, not happy that it left no hard and fast rules.

I didn't understand the McCain-Feingold decision. Not clear to me what they actually struck down.
0

#3 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,277
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2008-June-26, 19:33

A prediction:

The number of gun related deaths during 2009 in D.C. will substantially exceed the number from 2007. I'm intentionally skipping over the transition year of 2008. I wouldn't bet my life on this claim, but I do think that is what will happen. We shall see.

Of course I realize that the case is based on Constitutional interpretation rather than practical consequences. Still, I offer my prediction. We can check back at at the end of 2009.

As to the 5-4 ruling. I think it is very bad that so many decisions are so closely decided. It supports the idea that, practically speaking, the Constitution means whatever the Justices say it means. I would much prefer to think that it means what it says and that for the most part this meaning can be unambiguously understood by fair minded justices with their advanced legal training . I'm naive, I suppose.

I have always managed to live where crime is low, so I have no direct personal stake in this decision.
Ken
0

#4 User is offline   Gerben42 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,577
  • Joined: 2005-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany
  • Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
    Nuclear power

Posted 2008-June-27, 01:01

I fear for the lives of those poor Americans who have to live with such an outdated amendment. Before it is abolished, it will cost many more innocent lives.

Scary stuff.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
My Bridge Systems Page

BC Kultcamp Rieneck
0

#5 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-June-27, 11:56

Gerben42, on Jun 27 2008, 02:01 AM, said:

I fear for the lives of those poor Americans who have to live with such an outdated amendment. Before it is abolished, it will cost many more innocent lives.

Scary stuff.

there's a difference in perspective at work, that's all... the constitution was originally meant to limit the scope and powers of the central gov't, giving the states (and the people) more of both... there was a mistrust of strong central gov't by the founders, and imo rightly so... in europe that's usually not the case, there have always been monarchs and/or very centralized control (for the most part)... so it follows that fewer personal liberties are desired there... here, it's just a different culture based on the beginning of the country

but even here, now, it doesn't much matter any more...
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#6 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-June-29, 07:18

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#7 User is offline   Gerben42 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,577
  • Joined: 2005-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany
  • Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
    Nuclear power

Posted 2008-June-29, 07:42

Quote

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.


Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
My Bridge Systems Page

BC Kultcamp Rieneck
0

#8 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-June-29, 08:34

Gerben42, on Jun 29 2008, 08:42 AM, said:

Quote

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.


Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.

maybe so gerben, but don't you see that it's still a matter of your political philosophy? in the end, which entity do you as a citizen/human want to make the decisions, or hold the power? we over here are always bitching about the prez, the congress, the senate, the SC or all of them... why would we want them to have even *more* power if we can't stand them with the power they do have?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#9 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,362
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2008-June-29, 08:48

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#10 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-June-29, 09:03

Gerben42, on Jun 29 2008, 08:42 AM, said:

Quote

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.


Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.

Perhaps. The significant aspect is not a debate over gun ownership - the truly critical issue is how that determination is made: via a democratic process or through a mnority decision (a ruling by a ruler).
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#11 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,314
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2008-June-29, 13:17

helene_t, on Jun 29 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?

Helene, you are far, far too rational B)

Politics is about fear and greed, not rationality.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#12 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-June-29, 13:22

This seems to be on point:

Quote

Judge Advises Crime Victim To Arm Herself After Attack
Moon Says No Longer Possible For Police To Protect Citizens
posted June 27, 2008

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."

He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself." The woman moved back in with her mother after the May 4 incident on E. 17th Street.

Judge Moon said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens have a right to purchase a weapon to defend themselves, their families and their homes - unless there is some disqualification that prevents them from owning a weapon."

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#13 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-June-29, 15:16

helene_t, on Jun 29 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

the one that says that the greatest fear a citizen should have is of his own government... i don't think that fear is overstated, and i'm sure you'll agree that history teaches that lesson

Quote

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

i agree... none of those should concern the central gov't, they should be left to the states, maybe even to gov't entities at a more local level... but i don't think you're taking the tact that because gov't errs in some things it justifies other errors

Quote

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?

and that's the difference in philosophy i spoke of... in europe, tradition and culture combine to allow opinions that might differ from locations that feel it's prudent to constrain central gov't
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#14 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,305
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-June-29, 15:25

"It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns."

Helene you really hit the nail on the head, just as Winson did in another post.

Note not only allowed but somehow have a right, an individual right to own guns.

This gets back to the question of what rights do individuals have compared to what rights governments have. Or to put it another way, where do the powers of government over the govern end? If those in power get to decide anything and everything on the basis of the "greater good" and they decide what that means.....fair enough.


As a side note guns have been banned in DC since 1976 and the place is still a hell hole, murder jungle despite the ban. ONe of the worst in the world.

I think what people find crazy is the belief that a city or a country having even more guns, perhaps alot more guns will provide a greater "safety of freedom" This is really what many believe. That a country that allows no legal handguns and rifles in the home is much less safe compared to a country that allows widespread ownership.
0

#15 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,362
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2008-June-30, 03:31

luke warm, on Jun 29 2008, 10:16 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 29 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

the one that says that the greatest fear a citizen should have is of his own government... i don't think that fear is overstated, and i'm sure you'll agree that history teaches that lesson

OK, fair enough, I agree with that in principle. I am worried about the government controlling media, the housing market etc. It's just that this particular issue of guns is completely absurd IMHO - it is really beyond me in what way someone would benefit from owning a gun, or how someone could believe gun ownership to be good for society. OTOH it is quite clear to me in what way widespread gun ownership could be a disadvantage to a society.

I can sorta translate it to the current trend in Europe to constrain smoking. I am split about that issue since on one side I am against smoking and I believe it would be nice if something could be done to protect teenagers from getting addicted - it will harm them through their whole life. OTOH as a matter of principle I am against social engineering - if people want to tar their own lungs it is their own business.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#16 User is offline   Gerben42 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,577
  • Joined: 2005-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany
  • Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
    Nuclear power

Posted 2008-June-30, 04:06

Quote

I can sorta translate it to the current trend in Europe to constrain smoking. I am split about that issue since on one side I am against smoking and I believe it would be nice if something could be done to protect teenagers from getting addicted - it will harm them through their whole life. OTOH as a matter of principle I am against social engineering - if people want to tar their own lungs it is their own business.


Agree with this. If people want to smoke, let them. Just not near me, thanks. I think the current smoking ban in Germany is perhaps too harsh, if people have 1-man pubs they should be able to decide for themselves if they want to make it a smoker's place.

The government should instead threaten smokers with the danger of forfeiting their right for medical care for smoking-related illnesses on the basis that those who smoke are deliberately damaging their health, so that the government health care system should not pay for illnesses that they knew they would get. Of course if they break a leg or something else completely unrelated, medical care should be covered.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
My Bridge Systems Page

BC Kultcamp Rieneck
0

#17 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,868
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2008-June-30, 10:14

Gerben42, on Jun 29 2008, 08:42 AM, said:

Quote

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.


Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.

With all due respect, Gerben, what we do with our Constitution is none of your business.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#18 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,868
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2008-June-30, 10:55

helene_t, on Jun 29 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?


One of the reasons our Founding Fathers included the surety of the right to bear arms in the Constitution is that they could see what had happened in countries where that right was not recognized.

As to bans on prostitution and drugs, those too are anathema to some. As well they should be, IMO.

Here's a principle: individuals have rights. Groups, including governments, have no more rights than the individuals that make up the group. So if an individual has no right to tell another individual whether he can do drugs, or hire a prostitute, or carry a gun, then neither do governments.

If you assert that government has rights not accessible to individuals, I would ask you three things: what are they, from whence come they, and can you prove that your assertion is valid?

"Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things". Why should we make this assumption?

You might want to read Point Blank by Gary Kleck, Stopping Power and Self Control, Not Gun Control by J. Neil Schulman and The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy by Ted Koppel. Kleck in particular provides not a pro- or anti- gun viewpoint, but an analysis of the data regarding gun violence in America. In fact he set out to prove that the data supported gun control, but found that in fact they did the exact opposite. Amazon.uk references since I expect they'll be more useful to you (although frankly I was surprised all of these books were listed there).
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#19 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,945
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2008-June-30, 11:16

Me, too, Ed, but still, this is the Internetz, I has my right to speak, whether it's my business or not :-)

First, the strange thing is that I think the ruling is *right*, and that's from someone who wanders around his 1.1M population city at night with no worries (and no gun). And much prefers that situation than the other.

I also agree with lukewarm about "greatest fear". Pity the current crop of Americans are (collectively) doing such a piss-poor job of it - the "personal rights" Republicans most of all. Their greatest fears are those projected *by* the government, and nobody seems to care to ask why the government would choose to project those fears. As a result, transition to police state owned by the Corporations is well in hand.

However, IIRC, the original quote was the other way around (that the government should fear the people)...and now I can only find the "V for Vendetta" one. However, this seems apt:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry at the Virginia constitutional ratifying convention.

Sure looks like the presence of the Second Amendment has put guns in the hands of too many people who have given up everything but the ability to use that force. Truly unfortunate that the "I need a handgun to protect me from the government who is taking away my liberty" philosophy has died, without also removing the "I need a handgun to protect me from my fellow American". Those who can say the latter and defend the current government's actions as "in this crisis we need to restrict some liberty to Keep Us Safe From The Terrorists/Keep Ahead Of The Drug-Runners" deserve what they get, frankly. Pity they have to take Americans with them.
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)
0

#20 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,868
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2008-June-30, 11:41

Certainly you have the right to speak. So does Gerben. That's as far as it goes, though.

It has been years since I owned or carried a gun. Or needed one. In fact, the one time I would have been happier if I'd had one, I'd left it at home. And while there are parts of my home city I'd not go into at night - or for that matter in daylight - I have no worries about going anywhere I would normally want to go. The "constant" shootings that some people seem to think are the norm in this country are, well, they just aren't. :)

Patrick Henry was a rabble rouser. He was also right. so was Ben Franklin ("They who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.") Franklin also said, in a speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787 - almost exactly 221 years ago) " Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." The question seems to be whether we have become that corrupted. I don't think so - yet.

It is my belief that our "great experiment" will last only so long as we the people are willing to make it last - and we are very close to giving up on it. :(
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users