Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247205#Comment_119247205

Show me where the right allowing any idiot the right to carry guns on the street is in the Constitution, please.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247236#Comment_119247236

The right to bear arms.

I don't like it but it is there

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247267#Comment_119247267

If you're going to quote the 2nd Amendment, do it properly instead of twisting it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A 'well regulated Militia' =/= any Tom, Dick or Harry, but because the Constitution is so vague, it leaves it open for these interpretation.

Answer me this, do you think women should be allowed to have their liberties deprived?

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247295#Comment_119247295

It is mentioned so the interpretation that some bollox can walk down the street with an assault rifle is there. Whether we like it or not or whether others take that legal position on it or not.

Abortion is not mentioned in any way.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247353#Comment_119247353

Assault rifle isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all, so why do you get to interpret it that way?

Abortion isn't mentioned, but the right to not have laws which deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process is.

Are you saying women shouldn't be allowed access to safe, informed medical healthcare? That goes against the 14th Amendment. That is literally the definition of depriving them of their liberties.

If you read Alito's opinion he doesn't even dispute this. His reasoning is essentially that abortions weren't happening when the 14th Amendment was written, so it doesn't count. It's absolute bollocks and there isn't anybody here who can sit up and defend how backwards that is.

Looks like you only want to interpret the Constitution when it suits you, when really you're completely out of your depth. You say abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution but you say that it can be interpreted to mean that 'assault rifles' (as you said) can be carried on the streets by any prick.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247382#Comment_119247382

Assault rifles are arms, change it for hunting rifles. It can be interpreted that way. It has been for decades now, 40 years ago, it wasn't.

Due process refers to legal recourse.

The Judges just said that it is not an issue that can be decided at a federal level, it's a State issue. That is the legal framework they have to work within.

Some of those Judges may not like that but they are not there to like things.

Either amend the constitution or change at State level.

They are the legal options.

You can suppose all you want, not like it and be outraged but what is your practical, real world plan to change it.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247406#Comment_119247406

And abortion is healthcare. Healthcare is a liberty.

Are you getting this yet or do I need to spell it out to you more?

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247410#Comment_119247410

Health care is not a liberty. Maybe it should be..

In some cases abortion can be on medical grounds, in general it is not. Again though, it is hard to see a legal argument on that grounds.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247419#Comment_119247419

The original SCOTUS decision was correct.

The difference this time is that the court has been packed with Christian wing nuts. It’s been a concerted effort by the fundamentalists for the last 40 years to get the right people in place.

Its absolutely nothing to do with the constitution. It’s a battle of ideas. The nut jobs won.

Manic Moran

Assault rifle isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all, so why do you get to interpret it that way?

Per SCOTUS: "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

If you read Alito's opinion he doesn't even dispute this. His reasoning is essentially that abortions weren't happening when the 14th Amendment was written, so it doesn't count. It's absolute bollocks and there isn't anybody here who can sit up and defend how backwards that is.

I agree that Alito's methodology doesn't seem fantastic, though in this case I've not read it yet. That doesn't make the original case's methodology any better.

Interestingly, the ruling strongly in favour of firearms rights does open up a possibility for abortion legislation. There are more than a couple of us who are in favour of both firearms rights and abortion. Now that SCOTUS has put a pretty solid ruling in place on guns, there is less to fear from electing a pro-abortion legislator (At state or federal level), who may also be anti-gun.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119248526#Comment_119248526

Not at all sure how it’s Bidens fault he never had a pick for the Supreme Court before KBJ. And she’s replacing a retiree at the end of the session, so she’s not even seated yet.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119248573#Comment_119248573

I feel like the post is look how much the right have f'd things up even with Biden as president.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119248526#Comment_119248526

Tf is the Brandon presidency?

Your level of disingenuity and misinformation can be tracked along the rate of inflation. What did Biden have to do with said rate of inflation? Did he cause that same rate rise here? Did Biden invade Ukraine? Did Biden appoint those Conservative judges to the supreme Court?

Please supply answers to those questions

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119248287#Comment_119248287

So the SCOTUS can say the 2A can include any and all arms since then, but this doesn’t apply to the 14A?

You just proved my point. They’re making it up as they go along to suit their own views.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119248586#Comment_119248586

That’s sort of the reality of the situation.

Part of Trumps agenda was to fill those seats and part of his original expectation was that they would give him the authority to stay in power. The best he got was Clarence Thomas voting to block evidence that implicated his wife.

IMHO, the think tanks and dark money that hand selected them, paid off their debts and paid for the votes to get them on the bench, was never interested in Trump. In 2016, Trump was always the means to the end: getting a Republican to name the next justice (or three). That calculus was going to happen with or without Trump, before the primaries were even decided. The ultimate goal was always overturning roe and installing Republican theocrats. No way were they gonna go down with Trumps sinking ship, it was all about yesterdays ruling 49 years in the making.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119248526#Comment_119248526

Abortion: Trumps picks on the SCOTUS

Inflation: The result of inflationary economics, turbo charges by the Trump tax cut.

War in Europe: Putin invaded after 4 years of appeasement.

LOL my arse.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119248625#Comment_119248625

That's a bit of a leap, though. Defining what constitutes an arm, a tangible object, is a much less controversial question that defining intangibles on a subject on which the population has some very divided opinions.

That's why the courts tend to defer to legislatures on those intangibles, if the legislators do their jobs and actually make those decisions.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119247443#Comment_119247443

That'd be RCC right-wing zealots - Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, Roberts, Barrett. If there were any doubt, look at the crowing concurrence from Thomas and what he wants to see repealed. "Maybe" Gorsuch is "just" an evangelical but he's fairly sly about his religious beliefs.

At least next time they'll be able to skip the confirmation hearings. Doesn't matter what a candidate says.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119246823#Comment_119246823

This view conveniently ignores the unrepresentative nature of Congress and many State assemblies, due to disenfranchisement efforts, and the Courts role in creating that.

Part of a continuous effort to erode democratic protections and entrench minority rule at State and National level.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119253363#Comment_119253363

It also ignores the fact that when the constitution was written in the 18th century women were essentially second class citizens. They could not vote and had all but zero direct input into the writing of the constitution.

landofthetree

https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0628/1307204-texas-migrants/

Biden should resign immediately. He promised to fix the border problem. He promised a visa to everyone who wanted to live in America.

extra gravy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119260396#Comment_119260396

Were you calling on his predecessor to resign when this was happening on his watch? I thought the borders were wide open thanks to Joe, why would people need to be smuggled?

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119260396#Comment_119260396

Biden promised no such thing.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119260531#Comment_119260531

If only those posters applied their own forgetfulness of recent past events as a measure of dementia as they did to Biden

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119260531#Comment_119260531

"But...But...Trump"

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119262595#Comment_119262595

But.... but... comparison with closest example

Overheal

Yes I’m sure somehow, some way, building that wall would have prevented the trucks from just coming through the port of entry.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119262755#Comment_119262755

Ultimately, yes. But how do you measure how well he’s doing? Curious.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119262873#Comment_119262873

I strongly suspect that the X-ray machines which every vehicle (as of 2021) is supposed to go through is likely to have picked up on the truck if it were loaded with people. This was almost certainly a bunch of folks who had made it across the border, and boarded the truck on the US side.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264859#Comment_119264859

With the shipping container backlog how often is that being done properly and for each port of entry and vehicle