Gun Control & RKBA

thucythucy

(8,926 posts)

27. To answer your question--

Reply to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 26, 2020, 10:12 PM

Apr 2020

no, I don't. Scalia had a libertarian streak that informed many of his opinions. Sometimes -- very rarely -- he came down on what I would consider to be the right side, generally he didn't. Heller was one of those times he didn't.

I had the opportunity to be in the audience during oral arguments of a case in which I had a personal investment. I found Scalia to be an obnoxious bully who had obviously already made up his mind, and used his time to belittle the attorney arguing the side he opposed. It was bullying pure and simple, since the attorney of course wasn't in a position to answer snark with snark.

Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, spent much of the time actually staring at the ceiling. He looked and acted bored to be there, and didn't ask a single question. Quite the contrast to Thurgood Marshall, whose incisive questioning during oral arguments is legendary.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Tosses California Ammunition Purchase Law [View all] friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 OP

Any act of public policy which increases Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #1

Feh- that was also the meme used to sell Proposition 8- 'preventing societal harm' friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #4

Voluntary marriage? Voluntary consumption of alcohol? Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #6

That fact that a Constitutional right is unpopular in certain polities doesn't make it non-existant friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #9

The act in question is part of the 2016 California Proposition 63 discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #8

Nothing prevents the 2A from being correctly interpreted. Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #12

Your use of the phrase "correctly interpreted" spoke Loudly to me, so I did a little research friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #15

A bully who loves guns. Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #20

Winkling out deceit is hardly bullying, and I own no guns. Try again... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #22

Do share that interpretation. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #21

They have already stated what sort of interpretation they'd like: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #23

So without the violation of rights 16% of the time, would the law be acceptable? discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #28

So of the people it inconvenienced thucythucy Apr 2020 #2

Try again- this bit of performative security theater inconvenienced *everybody*... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #3

But more than four fifths of those "inconvenienced" thucythucy Apr 2020 #5

You are misinterpreting the sentence. ManiacJoe Apr 2020 #7

Your defense of this security theater is sincere, but misplaced for these reasons: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #10

Admittedly, the fact that some juresdictions are lackadaisical thucythucy Apr 2020 #11

Lots of things have been restricted for ostensibly being 'dangerous to public safety' friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #13

I consider bullets and firearms to be in an altogether different realm thucythucy Apr 2020 #14

Unless and until it is repealed, the Second Amendment exists, and is law friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #16

Which is the inevitable go-to argument thucythucy Apr 2020 #17

How about "Roe v Wade said it, I believe it, that settles it!"? That work for you? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #18

In the meantime, I suggest California gun owners minimize the effect of this law by... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #19

There are compelling reasons why I am pro-choice, thucythucy Apr 2020 #25

IMO, Scalia's decision in D.C. v Heller was one of his few 'stopped clock' moments. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #26

To answer your question-- thucythucy Apr 2020 #27

And to further the controversy... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #24