International News Americans with guns ....

werthersoriginal

Well-known member
Joined
9 Dec 2017
Messages
9,066
Almost beyond belief.
The US system seems fu** ed up.
Politically appointed supreme Court makes big political decision against common sense.
Truly pathetic. Totally unrepresentative court, politically appointed, able to overrule democracy
 

tonyw

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
2,992
Truly pathetic. Totally unrepresentative court, politically appointed, able to overrule democracy

Strictly speaking, the legislative branches in conjunction with state governments can always override the judiciary - the Supreme Court's job is to compare new laws against the US constitution, but the constitution can be amended.

The problem is that you need a super-majority (i.e. 2/3rds) in the Senate & House, and then 3/4 of all state governments to ratify. And the political atmosphere across the country is so toxic and combative that it's going to be impossible to get that on almost any issue. Even the very modest recent gun control bill only got, I think, 64% of the votes in the Senate.

The constitution was written to allow a bunch of free thinking state respresentatives, which a range of different viewpoints, to make collective decisions with a bunch of checks and balances to prevent any small minority from getting too screwed over. What we've seen is that it just doesn't work when what you've got is a hyper-partisan legislature shouting two diammetrically-opposed viewpoints at eachother, and having no particular interest in compromise.

So both sides have determined that the only loophole to make the big changes that they want is the Supreme Court.
(remember, Obama did it too - gay marriage became legal in the US this exact same way, when his court was majority liberal. Although we might prefer the outcome, the tactics he used were identical......)
 

OUFCGav

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,507
ah and Justice Thomas has already published an "opinion" that the court needs to re-evaluate the cases Griswald (right to contraception), Lawrence (invalidation of previous anti-sodomy laws), and Obergefell (legalisation of same sex marriage).
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
8,355
ah and Justice Thomas has already published an "opinion" that the court needs to re-evaluate the cases Griswald (right to contraception), Lawrence (invalidation of previous anti-sodomy laws), and Obergefell (legalisation of same sex marriage).
Goodness.
A return to some real dark days.
If this goes the way it could, is it possible that the US will tear itself apart? Or will different States just have massively different laws ( presumably many people will move to different States entrenching the views within such States)
 

tonyw

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
2,992
If this goes the way it could, is it possible that the US will tear itself apart? Or will different States just have massively different laws ( presumably many people will move to different States entrenching the views within such States)

I think it will be the latter - although it's not impossible that one side or the other will make an attempt to secede if things get too bad.

I'm sort of resigned to it - if states like Missouri and Mississippi want to take their laws back to the 1890s then I feel a little sorry for progressive people living there, but they'll just have to move to one of the coasts.

But it's why the Supreme Court's gun decision was so maddening this week - I'm actually OK with more rights being pushed back to the states because New Jersey is a liberal melting pot, and lawmakers here are likely to enact rules that roughly match my world view.
But New Yorkers want greater restrictions on the ability to carry weapons, and the conservative court said that weren't allowed to have them because in 1789, it was written in the constitution that "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" and six of the judges think that a clause written 230 years old should be interpreted literally today. They'll be coming for our NJ gun restrictions next.
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
8,355
I think it will be the latter - although it's not impossible that one side or the other will make an attempt to secede if things get too bad.

I'm sort of resigned to it - if states like Missouri and Mississippi want to take their laws back to the 1890s then I feel a little sorry for progressive people living there, but they'll just have to move to one of the coasts.

But it's why the Supreme Court's gun decision was so maddening this week - I'm actually OK with more rights being pushed back to the states because New Jersey is a liberal melting pot, and lawmakers here are likely to enact rules that roughly match my world view.
But New Yorkers want greater restrictions on the ability to carry weapons, and the conservative court said that weren't allowed to have them because in 1789, it was written in the constitution that "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" and six of the judges think that a clause written 230 years old should be interpreted literally today. They'll be coming for our NJ gun restrictions next.
With regard to the gun laws will some of the States fight back or is there little that they can do?
 

werthersoriginal

Well-known member
Joined
9 Dec 2017
Messages
9,066
I think it will be the latter - although it's not impossible that one side or the other will make an attempt to secede if things get too bad.

I'm sort of resigned to it - if states like Missouri and Mississippi want to take their laws back to the 1890s then I feel a little sorry for progressive people living there, but they'll just have to move to one of the coasts.

But it's why the Supreme Court's gun decision was so maddening this week - I'm actually OK with more rights being pushed back to the states because New Jersey is a liberal melting pot, and lawmakers here are likely to enact rules that roughly match my world view.
But New Yorkers want greater restrictions on the ability to carry weapons, and the conservative court said that weren't allowed to have them because in 1789, it was written in the constitution that "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" and six of the judges think that a clause written 230 years old should be interpreted literally today. They'll be coming for our NJ gun restrictions next.
I’m hoping national companies will pull out of those states. Maybe financial pressure will tell where moral pressure hasn’t
 

Grumpy Git

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
1,084
American christians are as evil as the Taliban. Republican pro-life supporters want to preserve life, so that these kids can be slaughtered in their classrooms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QR

OUFCGav

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,507
American christians are as evil as the Taliban. Republican pro-life supporters want to preserve life, so that these kids can be slaughtered in their classrooms.
As one of the banners at a protest said "is it ok if I put a gun up my pussy and shoot?"
 

holdsteady

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
4,444
American christians are as evil as the Taliban. Republican pro-life supporters want to preserve life, so that these kids can be slaughtered in their classrooms.

I reckon Christians in the US might have a wider range of views than the Taliban, bit of a broader church.
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
8,355
I’m hoping national companies will pull out of those states. Maybe financial pressure will tell where moral pressure hasn’t
Good point.
Many of the larger Companies are talking about paying for staff to go to other states to get abortions if they want them.
I guess that the problem is that the extremists in some states will start ostracising and worse, the people that do this
 

tonyw

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
2,992
I’m hoping national companies will pull out of those states. Maybe financial pressure will tell where moral pressure hasn’t

Genuinely not sure what effect that would have - most of the states that have the trigger abortion laws in place are amongst the poorest in the nation already.

Mississippi, for example, already has about 20% of its population living in poverty. Having been there, that statistic doesn't surprise me. I found it to be a pretty backwards place in almost every respect.

With regard to the gun laws will some of the States fight back or is there little that they can do?

They'll rewrite the laws to try and do the same thing in a subtler way - then some wannabe gun-toting New Yorker will take them to court again saying the restrictions are unconstitutional and then we'll probably go round this roundabout again. Almost no-one in New York wants people carrying guns all over the streets of New York - and there have been restrictions for a hundred years - so I suspect they'll find a legal way.....
 
Top Bottom