quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
Why is this not considered treason and treated as such? Like each of the first 10 amendments, the 2nd is a restriction on the government. Our inalienable rights do not derive from government at any level.

I think we need one more Trump appointee on on the SC, hopefully one that replaces RBG or another fascist.

I think that sets the stage for the NRA, ACLJ, etc to bring a case that would eventually make it to the SC and firmly establish the Second Amendment for all 50 states.



.



.

it would be really nice to see this judge overturned and then reported to the Bar Association for remedial discipline based on an apparent lack of comprehension of the English language as well as a failure to understand the Bill of Rights

the fact that some people refer to him as a 'judge' just goes to show that anyone without a grade school education can fool some of the people all of the time

I hope he gets hit by a snowplow

So tired of unelected, politicized judges unilaterally deciding what is, and isn’t, Constitutional

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
Why is this not considered treason and treated as such?

Well hey while he’s at it...he can fix the opioid problem. I read there’s 115 people a day who die from overdoses. Here’s an idea, let’s ban opioids to save lives. That way no one but people with legitimate prescriptions will use them.

People who live in ivory towers sure have a distorted view of this world.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
Why is this not considered treason and treated as such?

A logical answer would be more productive. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
Why is this not considered treason and treated as such?

A logical answer would be more productive. Thanks.

Logical questions get logical answers. Your question is illogical, because a ruling from a judge does not meet the definition of treason. Not even close.

Since you are apparently ignorant of the realities surrounding treason, despite your eagerness to imply a judge is guilty of it, I will attempt to direct your attention to Article III, Section 3, of the Constituion of the United States, and Title 18, Section 2381, of the US Code.

https://www.archives.gov/found...ipt#toc-section-3--2

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DMF,

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
Why is this not considered treason and treated as such? Like each of the first 10 amendments, the 2nd is a restriction on the government. Our inalienable rights do not derive from government at any level.

I think we need one more Trump appointee on on the SC, hopefully one that replaces RBG or another fascist.

I think that sets the stage for the NRA, ACLJ, etc to bring a case that would eventually make it to the SC and firmly establish the Second Amendment for all 50 states.



.



.

Yet I'm not confident 'that' would even resolve the issue. Clearly this judge has opted to fully ignore at least one (probably two) SCOTUS precedents on the topic. This guy is 78 years old, and likely waaaaaaaaaaayyy beyond his prime (assuming he ever had one). I still believe judges at all levels should have a mandatory retirement age. What that age should be I don't know, but it should come at some point before 78, or horizontal and feet first.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
it would be really nice to see this judge overturned and then reported to the Bar Association for remedial discipline based on an apparent lack of comprehension of the English language as well as a failure to understand the Bill of Rights

He can be reversed, the case can be remanded, but there's really no way to discipline someone who's a life-time appointee. It's embarrassing to be reversed, but that's about it.

That's why it's important to get it right "the first time" when it comes to appointing and confirming Article 3 judges. You don't get a do-over on someone who is benched-for-life. There's not much you can do to get rid of one who is incompetent or lazy, but not corrupt.

At the same time, this is why we have an appellate-level court.