The second amendment

[Koldo]

Yes both sides can have good reasoning for their position. Life is not black and white it is usually pretty nuanced. There can be reasonable disagreement on both sides. Almost all supreme court decisions are congruent with the justices political leanings. That does not mean they do not have a good valid and sound reasons for their decisions. Please show they did not base their decision on what they wrote in the opinion.

It is impossible to consistently vote according to your political leanings if you are not aiming for that. Otherwise, that entails that their leanings were reached after throughly examination of the law (which we know is not the case) or that by chance they happen to agree with the legal arguments of the side they already happened to support.

 

[Koldo]

No, it's the word I intended, & a good one.
There is a wealth of communication from
that era. A big problem arises when people
with an agenda infer meaning from what
they cull.

"Reasonable doubt" shouldn't apply, because
the alternative is typically fraught with the same
issue. I'd pick the most reasonable inference.

Taking an example, do you think free speech in the 1st
Amendment applies to only the printed word because
that's how it's worded? Or do you look at the intent of
the function that "the press" served back in the day?
If the latter, you favor originalism. If the former, then
you're a strict constructionist.

I think that whatever happens to substitute the press with the technological advancements should be interpreted as 'the press'. I would say the intent is clear in the very text of the amendment without even needing to resort to anything else to reach this conclusion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It is impossible to consistently vote according to your political leanings if you are not aiming for that.

Another claim with no evidence.

Otherwise, that entails that their leanings were reached after throughly examination of the law (which we know is not the case)

Another claim without evidence.

or that by chance they happen to agree with the legal arguments of the side they already happened to support.

How do you know this is not the case?

 

[Koldo]

Another claim with no evidence.

How exactly do you propose that happens then? By what mechanism?

Another claim without evidence.

Do you believe that they became liberal or conservatives AFTER going through the law school?

How do you know this is not the case?

What are the odds?
I have an excellent bridge for sale if you believe this to be what happened.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How exactly do you propose that happens then? By what mechanism?

I do not have an idea.

Do you believe that they became liberal or conservatives AFTER going through the law school?

I have no idea.

What are the odds?

I don't know.

I have an excellent bridge for sale if you believe this to be what happened.

I never said I believed anything. I only said you have not provided good evidence that they decided first then made an argument to support it in the Heller 2008 case. You may be right but you have not provided good evidence that you are right.

 

[Koldo]

I do not have an idea.

I have no idea.

I don't know.
I never said I believed anything. I only said you have not provided good evidence that they decided first then made an argument to support it in the Heller 2008 case. You may be right but you have not provided good evidence that you are right.

The evidence is that their political leanings align perfectly with the way they have voted.
What exactly would you expect the evidence to look like?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The evidence is that their political leanings align perfectly with the way they have voted.

I am not convinced. How do you know that every case was decided that way and the Heller 2008 case was decided that way. How do you tell the difference between a case that was decided by their political leanings and one that was decided by good reasoning?

What exactly would you expect the evidence to look like?

I have no idea, but if there is good evidence you should be able to present it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am saying it is not up to me to determine the standard. It is up to the person making the claim to explain the standard and then explain why the majority did not conform to that standard if that is their claim. If you cannot support your claim it does not mean you are wrong, it just means you can't justify believing it is true.

Yes, but you can't judge the standard proposed unless you know what the correct standard(s) is/are.

Here is what is going on to the bone in general terms:
Claim: They did something, which was biased.
Counter: Give evidence that it was biased.

Me: For the counter to be not just rhetorical it requires that the person requesting the evidence knows how to evaluate the evidence.
That is it. If you can't evaluate any standard claimed, then any standard can be claimed. For the burden of proof to make sense, it requires that there is such a thing as a standard of proof, that is known by the person demanding proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not convinced. How do you know that every case was decided that way and the Heller 2008 case was decided that way. How do you tell the difference between a case that was decided by their political leanings and one that was decided by good reasoning?
I have no idea, but if there is good evidence you should be able to present it.

There are generally two schools of thought on how to interpret a law or a clause in the constitution.
-Original intent as it was actually understood. What the framers intended.
-The overall idea or sum of the constitution as expressed as the idea of a good society. That a good society is an evolving cultural process and that good can change slightly in some cases, but still be with in overall idea of a good society.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, but you can't judge the standard proposed unless you know what the correct standard(s) is/are.

Here is what is going on to the bone in general terms:
Claim: They did something, which was biased.
Counter: Give evidence that it was biased.

Me: For the counter to be not just rhetorical it requires that the person requesting the evidence knows how to evaluate the evidence.
That is it. If you can't evaluate any standard claimed, then any standard can be claimed. For the burden of proof to make sense, it requires that there is such a thing as a standard of proof, that is known by the person demanding proof.

You don't need to know what my standards of evidence are to provide the evidence. You provide the evidence and I evaluate the evidence by my standards and decide if I am convinced or not. Obviously we can have back and forth on the evidence but the evidence is the evidence no matter how I evaluate it. If you choose not to give me the evidence then ok, we are done and I will not be convinced of your claim.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There are generally two schools of thought on how to interpret a law or a clause in the constitution.
-Original intent as it was actually understood. What the framers intended.
-The overall idea or sum of the constitution as expressed as the idea of a good society. That a good society is an evolving cultural process and that good can change slightly in some cases, but still be with in overall idea of a good society.

It seems to me how it should be interpreted is with what the writers meant and how they understood the constitution and then applying that to our society in a common sense way. Such as freedom of speech, the intent was the we can have speech that the government could not retaliate against you for that speech. There was no Twitter at the time the right was written but a common sense interpretation is that freedom of speech applies to Twitter as well. The intent of the right matters to how we apply it today.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems to me how it should be interpreted is with what the writers meant and how they understood the constitution and then applying that to our society in a common sense way. Such as freedom of speech, the intent was the we can have speech that the government could not retaliate against you for that speech. There was no Twitter at the time the right was written but a common sense interpretation is that freedom of speech applies to Twitter as well. The intent of the right matters to how we apply it today.

Well, we don't agree on Twitter since Twitter is not a part of the Government and can set their own rules on the property.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well, we don't agree on Twitter since Twitter is not a part of the Government and can set their own rules on the property.

You did not understand what I wrote. Freedom of speech is only a protection from government retaliation. Twitter can have any rules it wants. The right to free speech protects us from retaliation from the government for writing something on Twitter.