bmyers Posted February 29, 2016 at 05:43 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 05:43 PM http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-10-year-streak-question/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clarence-thomas-asks-questions-supreme-court-argument-1st-time-in-10-years/ Listening to the video clip, Justice Thomas wanted to know what misdemeanor crime took away any other Constitutional right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerxx Posted February 29, 2016 at 06:01 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 06:01 PM He asked the Governments Attorney.... "Can you give an area of law where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right..?" Then went back and forth with more questions. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherryriver Posted February 29, 2016 at 06:07 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 06:07 PM Professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit suggests this is a sign the apocalypse has come.What next, Justice Breyer reading from the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted February 29, 2016 at 07:21 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 07:21 PM is there anywhere to actually listen to the whole argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 29, 2016 at 07:41 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 07:41 PM I wonder if it's because now that Scalia's gone, Thomas feels compelled to take up the task of asking the tough questions that Scalia would normally ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockboyy Posted February 29, 2016 at 07:46 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 07:46 PM The Sentence Does Not Fit the Crime But it Does FIT a Political Agenda (feel good law) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoAtty Posted February 29, 2016 at 08:33 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 08:33 PM is there anywhere to actually listen to the whole argument? The arguments for the week are posted every Friday here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted February 29, 2016 at 08:38 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 08:38 PM is there anywhere to actually listen to the whole argument? The arguments for the week are posted every Friday here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx so basically no I just have to wait until Friday lol. I was hoping because of the comments there was some sort of audio or transcript of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted February 29, 2016 at 09:03 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 09:03 PM I wonder if it's because now that Scalia's gone, Thomas feels compelled to take up the task of asking the tough questions that Scalia would normally ask. That would be my guess. There used to be two members of the Supreme Court who truly believed in the US Constitution. Now there is only one. I saw this on fox news this morning. Another +1 for Justice Thomas. If only there were more like him!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiskeyRebel Posted February 29, 2016 at 10:57 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 10:57 PM And the liberals are complaining about it in force: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/29/3754773/justice-thomas-just-broke-his-ten-year-silence-to-complain-that-domestic-abusers-cant-have-guns/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IH8IL Posted February 29, 2016 at 11:35 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 11:35 PM It is mostly bs. They keep adding bs misdemeanor laws that would take away our 2nd and honestly I'm suprised they can keep getting away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted February 29, 2016 at 11:45 PM Share Posted February 29, 2016 at 11:45 PM It is mostly bs. They keep adding bs misdemeanor laws that would take away our 2nd and honestly I'm suprised they can keep getting away with it. Pretty much this. He makes a very very good point about the slowly "creeping" list of prohibiting crimes in regards to the 2A. If this was some Southern state trying to keep people from VOTING for misdemeanor DV it would be national news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 1, 2016 at 12:57 AM Share Posted March 1, 2016 at 12:57 AM It's gonna be very interesting to see how this turns out because, as pointed out by the petitioner's reply brief, Justice Kagan's opinion in Castleman explicitly (and I mean it there is absolutely zero ambiguity) states that the crucial element triggering the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence prohibition is the act must be deliberate in nature. There must be intent or it is simply not a crime that triggers the prohibition. Not a mens rea of recklessness which is the question here. There's a colossal volume of case law showing a crime such as a felony crime of violence such as battery or assault requires the act to be deliberate in nature or it doesn't (cannot) trigger the Lautenberg Amendment. It's impossible to batter someone without the intent to batter. Or charging someone with a crime requiring the mens rea of intent, yet nothing indicates that the person committed the Act with any intent, but recklessly (that's why we have statutes differentiating between homicide for intentional acts and manslaughter for reckless acts). It's paradoxical to say "this crime requires intent....unless no such intent exists." The Supreme Court should know since it's their own reasoning. Especially all of the liberals who signed onto Kagan's opinion in Castleman. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuangTzu Posted March 1, 2016 at 03:55 AM Share Posted March 1, 2016 at 03:55 AM Transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-10154_5i36.pdf It's pretty hard to follow at first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted March 1, 2016 at 02:23 PM Share Posted March 1, 2016 at 02:23 PM Interesting that they argued that the government had a "compelling interest" to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of citizens convicted of a misdemeanor crime.It's the same argument they use when defending an AWB ("compelling interest"). It will be interesting to see how this one turns out on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadWaterBill Posted March 1, 2016 at 03:44 PM Share Posted March 1, 2016 at 03:44 PM Could it be that we have awakened a sleeping giant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFA Posted March 1, 2016 at 03:57 PM Share Posted March 1, 2016 at 03:57 PM Could it be that we have awakened a sleeping giant? I hope we did , and we all know how that worked out for Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 2, 2016 at 06:08 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 06:08 PM Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted March 2, 2016 at 06:29 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 06:29 PM Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalkis there a source for this? I would love to read that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 2, 2016 at 07:23 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 07:23 PM I'll try to hunt down the firsthand account. All the statements are basically hearsay (to use legalese). But this was (allegedly) discussed during a post-WWII "get together" in 1963 between American WWII vets and Japanese WWII vets. Someone had asked a Japanese officer why they didn't invade the mainland and he said because, not only was the populace armed to the teeth, but there were sponsored rifle matches, lots of people training, etc. In other words nothing like it is today. Said it wasn't worth the risk. Even though (IMO) the Japanese Army would probably have prevailed in the end due to our involvement on two fronts, not many military stateside equipped to handle something like that. I'm trying to hunt down the source but I've read the exact same account contained in multiple, unrelated documents. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadWaterBill Posted March 2, 2016 at 07:34 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 07:34 PM For you and others that were not alive then nor read up on WW2 look up a Japanese naval officer named Isoroku Yamamoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cls74 Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:29 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:29 PM Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk is there a source for this? I would love to read that.His wiki said it is likely he did not say this. See Quotes and misattributed https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:34 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:34 PM Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalkis there a source for this? I would love to read that.His wiki said it is likely he did not say this. See Quotes and misattributed https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto I had a feeling it was not true. if anything would have prevented them from doing this it would have been the lack of resources and people to actually takeover the whole continent. they are simply just to small and too far away to logistically invade the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:37 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:37 PM Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalkis there a source for this? I would love to read that.His wiki said it is likely he did not say this. See Quotes and misattributedhttps://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_YamamotoI read this article and found it sort of funny that it said that there was no evidence in writing that he SAID so it can't be true. So if you don't put it in writing it wasn't said. Seems strange. Just saying. Having just written that and saying Just Saying I really didn't say it I just wrote it. Get my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:39 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:39 PM I read this article and found it sort of funny that it said that there was no evidence in writing that he SAID so it can't be true. So if you don't put it in writing it wasn't said. Seems strange. Just saying. Having just written that and saying Just Saying I really didn't say it I just wrote it. Get my point?I think the issue they have is there's no documented proof besides people saying it happened. it wasn't in any news or anything. I see what you're saying though. I'm assuming there's little or no first had accounts of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:40 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:40 PM I read this article and found it sort of funny that it said that there was no evidence in writing that he SAID so it can't be true. So if you don't put it in writing it wasn't said. Seems strange. Just saying. Having just written that and saying Just Saying I really didn't say it I just wrote it. Get my point?I think the issue they have is there's no documented proof besides people saying it happened. it wasn't in any news or anything. I see what you're saying though. I'm assuming there's little or no first had people that heard it said.Come on now I wasn't being serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:43 PM Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:43 PM It is on the internet it has to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadWaterBill Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:46 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:46 PM i can not remember the number of books that I have read since the mid 1940s that have quoted the Admiral as making that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSD Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:51 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 08:51 PM Massad Ayoob made the same statement regarding Japanese intentions in the below article. He apparently knew a Navy officer who was possibly present for the statement. http://www.backwoodshome.com/armed-citizens-the-deterrent-factor/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colt guy Posted March 3, 2016 at 05:43 AM Share Posted March 3, 2016 at 05:43 AM I was watching some WW II program last night on Hero channel or some such station and i am pretty sure they did attribute that to Yamamoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.