Supreme Court of the United States | Trap Shooters Forum
  1. Recently members have been receiving an email about confirming their account. Do not click the link. If you have done so and entered your login information, change your password immediately, and ensure the email address on your account is correct. This is a phishing scam designed to take your login information. Details here: https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/confirmation-email-warning.694601/
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Members are required to have 50 posts before using the Classifieds Area, or PM system to contact. Any subversion of these rules will result in action taken against your account. The rules are posted here: https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/rules-for-using-the-for-sale-by-members-want-to-buy-want-to-trade-sections.265247/
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Supreme Court of the United States

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Rick Barker, Jun 29, 2020.

  1. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    28,267
    Just strikes me so strange the courts will allow some cities and States to write laws that limit gun ownership, ammo sales, saying “states rights” even though the language of the 2nd is quite specific, “shall not be infringed.”

    This same court will not allow States and local governments to stray from the courts ruling saying a woman has a right to an abortion, even though there is noting in the Constitution specific to this issue, but this is the law of the land and all must follow it, no exceptions, no States Rights. And never is this “right“ limited as the others are.

    Weird , huh?
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2020
    nitro27man and Big Az Al thanked this.
  2. flashmax

    flashmax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    18,616
    Location:
    Colorado
    It’s like politics informs the court. Even though Roberts says there is none.
     
    Big Az Al thanked this.
  3. CharlieAMA

    CharlieAMA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    17,910
    Location:
    God's Country
    Roberts has flip-flopped. I don't care for him anymore.
     
  4. Don-mx3

    Don-mx3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    5,686
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    56EC09BC-794F-48AA-B77A-A42A829BBD32.jpeg
     
    unplugged thanked this.
  5. aloha one

    aloha one TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    7,821
    Ever since the obamacare ruling this traitor has sold out. Either blackmail, or one humdinger of a payoff for his family.
    Aloha
     
    Big Az Al and unplugged thanked this.
  6. John Henry

    John Henry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Messages:
    3,443
    Starting to wonder if the Dems have something on him or a family member.......
     
  7. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,334
    Roberts fears for family threats I would say. It's pretty obvious at the begining of Obaboonzo's reign Roberts flipped suddenly when Bozo gave him the evil eye at the state of the Union address. I could see the fear in his face right then.
     
  8. aloha one

    aloha one TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    7,821
    This week could be very bad for Trump if the scotus allows his tax return to be made public, as no one with that much diversity and assets can possibly dot all the is and cross all the ts no matter how many cpas you have, and the vultures will have a field day picking over his carcass.
    Aloha
     
  9. pettifogger1

    pettifogger1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    I think it has to do with "selective incorporation." The Bill of Rights limits the power of Congress. The Supreme Court has selectively incorported sections of the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states through the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They have been reluctant to fully incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states via the 14th Amendment.
     
  10. CharlieAMA

    CharlieAMA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    17,910
    Location:
    God's Country
    I don't know of any place that it is some Federal or State law that you have to show your damn tax returns. I don't care about seeing anyone's tax returns. It is none of my business nor is mine anyone else's business. Of course, I could be wrong.
     
    Leo thanked this.
  11. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    28,267
    Then why force States to protect citizens rights like free speech, religion, right to trial, not testify against self or any other of those pesky things that prevent a State from ruling over people? The SCOTUS is highly political, has been for a long time. One thing over looked is the Bill of Rights was created at the insistence of some States which were only 13 at the time, before the States agreed to sign the Constitution.
     
  12. 9point3

    9point3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,763
    you need to understand selective incorporation, the BoR only referred to the Feds when written. Clause by clause the BoR has been applied to the states I'm not sure you want the complete BoR applied to the states in toto
     
  13. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    28,267

    Why not? If one’s right to free speech, fair trial, legal council, right to privacy, and others rights apply whatever State you are in, so should all rights. The Tenth Amendment gives States the authority to address issues not covered by the first 9 and those that follow the 10th. That has real meaning in itself.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2020 at 10:59 PM
  14. Savage99Stan

    Savage99Stan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,458
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    Somebody has a picture of Roberts and one of the Obamas.. not sayin about what...
     
  15. 9point3

    9point3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,763
    As of now, there are basically 4 clauses in the BoR. that have not been incorperated, the two that stand out are the mandate of indictment by grand jury and drawing of juries from.the state and district of the crime.


    The mandate of GJI (the right to one) at the state and local level would throw the legal process into a huge back log and slow the criminal process to a crawl

    The right to local juries would limit fair trials via change of venue

    Both are complicated issues and at this time, nobody has provided a case where the court deems it necessary to place these burdens on the state
     
  16. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    28,267

    Only complicated because the SCOTUS has made it so being another political animal. The BoR are safeguards for protections of the person and limitations of government at all levels of government, local, State and Federal. The State can be punished for violation of the 6th Amendment if the accused was not afforded an impartial jury as required by the 6th Amendment. That is an obligation if not met, the State could not hold trial, neither could the FED.

    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM