Biden signs executive order on abortion access

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-signs-executive-order-abortion-access-amid-pressure/story?id=86447547

Great news!!!

So basically a lot of hot air since his EOs don't have any authority outside of federal agencies.

I say he expands the court

@Serraph105: stacking the court is an insane idea... You would just have political opposition expanding it everytime the other party is in majority.

Yes, and with that, you would delude the overall power of each justice, all of whom are already way too powerful.

@Serraph105: If you want them to codify Roe into law Congress has to do it. I don't think half those stupid MF'rs even know how to write legislation anymore. But that's what needs to happen if you want it in law. Legislative branch needs to do it. Instead of crying about the SC you should be mad at Congress for promising they would do something and never did. .. you voted for these idiots. Force them to do thier jobs, or vote them out and put people in that will actually do thier jobs as legislators.

Tired of people getting mad at the SC for doing what they are supposed to do and giving a wide pass to Congress who has been lying to you and doing nothing. Stop being such suckers.

I'm doing both, but thanks.

@Serraph105: stacking the SC is basically deleting it. It's just a stupid idea.

LOL, as if McConnell's shenanigans haven't already opened this door.

Recall the GOP's refrain: "But is it illegal?"

https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-blasted-not-codifying-roe-v-wade-democrat-failure-1719156

Democrats wont do it.

They like to dangle the carrot.

You want the carrot.

suckers lol

Exactly. It's not, so, no breaking of law and order.

Looks like a whole lot of nothing, like many of his executive orders. The fact that he's pressing so hard for people to vote shows how little confidence he has in his admirations ability to do anything about this without the support of congress.

There only too powerful when they rule against something you are in favor.

I think it's more than fair to say that an executive order has nowhere near the staying power as legislation from congress.

Court is stacked. But the court was increased last to have the same amount as districts which has expanded. Though I would look into impeaching justices that committed perjury and finishing the investigation on Kavanaugh which wasn't done, what with his debt being mysteriously paid off.

Imagine thinking instigating a civil war, which is exactly what that would result in, because SCOTUS made the correct choice and reversed an act of activism in the court, kicking the ball back to congress to actually do their job. You people are so unhinged.

Imagine thinking that legal action would instigate a civil war.

Relax. Not everybody is a crazy loon who randomly wants civil war.

Opinion.

Says the guy crazily hinting at civil war earlier in the same exact post. LMAO!

Ahhh. Activism for me but not for thee,

Gun-rights activists remade the Second Amendment over past 40 years - The Washington Post

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

An opinion piece on the WaPo from a 20 something ACLU lawyer?

It doesn't say op-ed, and what's wrong with WaPo?

So you're going to refute this,

In 1939, the Supreme Court unanimously endorsedt his militia-based understanding of the amendment. Three years later, a federal appellate court noted that it was “abundantly clear” that the Second Amendment “was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.” This legal consensus over the Constitution’s meaning held for another three decades.

Right?

Why does an appellate court hold more weight to you than the Supreme Court? What are your thoughts on it without copying and pasting?

Yeah... spam basically. I'm surprised you still click on them.

I'm not sure why you're asking me my opinions on an article which historically explains that this specific guns right position is right wing activism.

In 1939, the Supreme Court unanimously endorsed this militia-based understanding of the amendment.

It's not an op-ed, and can you disprove it? All that matters is counter-citation on his historical claims.

I'm expecting you to both just take the L here, like with abortion via studies and medical groups.

I'm asking you why you think an appellate court has more weight in their reasoning compared to the Supreme Court.

I asked you to refute this paragraph first...before the deflection-question spam,

In 1939, the Supreme Court unanimously endorsed this militia-based understanding of the amendment. Three years later, a federal appellate court noted that it was “abundantly clear” that the Second Amendment “was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.” This legal consensus over the Constitution’s meaning held for another three decades.

You expect it? Why? You haven't done anything but spout nonsense and post op-eds as if they are evidence. You seem to completely lack, likely through willful ignorance, any understanding of the basics of how law works in the US, or even basic knowledge of the separation of powers. This is why you constantly try to direct threads towards moral arguments so you can post a cherry picked study, claim science is on your side, and tell yourself you've won something, no matter how irrelevant it is to the situation at hand.

You've also conveniently, and completely ignored multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court, and the words of the founders themselves in regards to the meaning of the 2A to try to redefine it into something that fits better into the narrative of the op-ed writers you spam us with.

There's no reason for either of us to take an L on any of this nonsense of yours. Go ahead, post more op-eds, studies, polls, it's not like you have the capacity to formulate your own opinions anyway.

It's not an op-ed, and you should easily be able to find counter citation to his historical claims (Spoilers, he never did). They are quite clear. Take the L, as you can't refute.

I never do this. I know they aren't cherry picked because you never find examples of the "other side". I ask multiple times and you just conveniently skip those posts. Whether it be abortion, climate change, the new gun study, or covid.

Opinion.

I will. They obliterate you.

The decision in US v. Miller was in relation to the specific instrument used. That decision was clearly unanimous, but it misses context of today's argument of the right to bear arms. I was addressing the latter majority of your copy-paste. Why does the appellate court hold more weight to you than the US Supreme Court?

Glad we agree the article is factually and historically accurate and that like medical experts, I should trust legal experts over you. The SCOTUS held the militia-based consensus of the amendment at that time.

That's exactly the point. Today's "argument" changed from conservative activism in the 1970's. Activism for me but not for thee!

That was just one of a few examples proving the historical and judicial consensus on 2A prior to right wing activism before the 1970's. We just agreed on one via the SCOTUS in 1939.

But to be specific on that one example I agree with the reasoning,

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: "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."

The appellant's contention is that if the statute under which this prosecution was brought is to be applied to a weapon of the type he had in his possession, then the statute violates the Second Amendment.

It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned writers since[13] that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.[14] The experiences in England under James II of an armed royal force quartered upon a defenseless citizenry[15] was fresh in the minds of the Colonists. They wanted no repetition of that experience in their newly formed government. The almost uniform course of decision in this country,[16] where provisions similar in language are found in many of the State Constitutions, bears out this concept of the constitutional guarantee. A notable instance is the refusal to extend its application to weapons thought incapable of military use.

And this isn't the only unrefuted article if that isn't enough for me to show the hypocrisy on "but activism!" whiners,

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice

“A fraud on the Amer­ican public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amend­ment gives an unfettered indi­vidual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conser­vat­ive appoin­ted by Richard Nixon was express­ing the long­time consensus of histor­i­ans and judges across the polit­ical spec­trum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an indi­vidual right to a fire­arm widely accep­ted, but increas­ingly states are also passing laws to legal­ize carry­ing weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of “Academics for the Second Amendment,” all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

Now there's 2 articles to refute. With counter-citation of course.

Hell I bet I can find more, you won't have multiple legal experts saying something was historically a consensus changed from activism in a specific timeframe and this "lie" that big not be easily refuted.

It's a bizarre train of thought in reliance on the past to establish present thought, especially in that era. Remember, Brown v. Board of Education overturned established consensus in the 50s (a decision made many many years before it). Just because a decision is "old" doesn't mean it's infallible. Why does the appellate court's opinion on the 2nd amendment being not adopted with individual rights in mind hold more weight to you than the US Supreme Court?

Can you explain without copying and pasting needless material? Or can you really not think for yourself?

Let me get this straight. You're asking me my legal opinion on un-refuted historical facts? Bizarre. Sounds like goal post moving to me.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Politico's History Department:

Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power.

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

Me suggesting Eoten is a hypocrite for being against some forms of activism and for others, completley depending on his politics, is based entirely off of a historical fact. Not a legal opinion. Not an opinion period.

If you disagree with this historical fact, please bring counter-citation.

I asked for why you value the appellate court's opinion over the US Supreme Court since you copy and pasted it. I've asked you 4 times. lol!

Goal post moving. lol.

Asking someone's opinion on their historical citation doesn't refute the facts within said citation.....

If you want to know my personal opinion, sure. I value it because the SCOTUS agreed with the militia understanding 3 years prior, and that it was the historical and judicial consensus for 200 years in general. Chief Justice Warren Burger felt the same as well (you mad at him too?). There you go. The subjective stuff is out of the way.

Now back to reality:

The 2 articles I posted are correct. Hence I can call out hypocrisy on activism "from" Eoten. And I always will when he uses that word.

Anything apart from a history article/study saying the opposite is deflection from this fact.

The appellate court isn't SCOTUS. SCOTUS didn't address the bigger picture of a right to bear arms in US v. Miller in the 30s, certainly not like how the appellate court was addressing it after the 30s. lol.

This is why it's very interesting when you step outside of your reliance on others to think for you shtick. You not only miss the point, but lack any understanding of the context.

But this has gone off topic enough.

Edit: Still copying and pasting. lol Zero critical thinking.

Not only did I nor the article say the Appellate court was the SCOTUS, you gave your opinion on a ruling. Your arbitrary "bigger picture" qualifier wasn't the claim. You appear to misunderstand the articles, and lack basic common sense. I guess asking questions whenever someone posts a history article or a peer reviewed study is one way to get around facts.

The SCOTUS unanimously agreed on the Militia viewpoint for this case as the article suggest, keeping in line with general consensus. You're almost making it appear like I have to choose between SCOTUS and the later Appellate court which was not contested for 3 decades (since that was the judicial consensus), even though they don't conflict.

Bullshitting on one sentence, and not even attempting to refute any of the remaining 2 articles.

You didn't even bother to arm-chair legal expert (when you aren't an arm-chair biologist) the Politico History piece. Guess you couldn't even find one sentence you took subjective problems with.

Here's more,

Until Heller, the invalidity of Second Amendment–based objections to firearms regulations had been uncontroversial. The first two federal laws directly restricting the civilian use and possession of firearms—the 1927 act prohibiting mail delivery of handguns and the 1934 act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections that were dismissed by the vast majority of legislators participating in the debates. After reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by Scalia in his majority opinion inHeller,theMillerCourt unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” And in 1980, in a footnote to an opinion upholding a conviction for receipt of a firearm, the Court effectively affirmedMiller, writing: “[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms.

John Paul Stevens: The Court Failed on Gun Control - The Atlantic

This makes 3 articles now.

Are you just going to accept Eoten is a hypocrite whenever he mentions activism?

@zaryia: lol, you’re proving Stevo’s point

What point? That he can't accept the clear L?

How many more articles do I have to post to show this was the legal consensus until political activism in the 70's? Debating history is the worst because it's set in stone, making the argument so painful because you know the other side is straight up lying.

Why would he accept the L after making you a laughing stock on your comments?

Ugh. Debating typically uncontested history is so ANNOYING! There's no way around it, one side is correct and the other is going to be making stuff up. Usually the side without sources is the latter.

You're both going to be accepting it, because:

1. No counter citation. You guys were wrong and the articles were right. His opinions on the case don't matter, this was a clear example of the SCOTUS making a unanimous decision that agreed with the militia understanding. No matter how big or small, it was literally a great example of it. I nor the article said that was the same exact decision the Appellate court made 3 years later, just that it was clearly following the judicial consensus of the last 2 centuries. Just more examples. Multiple SCOTUS justices agreed with the general claim of this consensus, with quotes in the articles.

2. Completely skipping out on the superior Politico article. Couldn't even bother to lie about it lol.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Gun-rights activists remade the Second Amendment over past 40 years - The Washington Post

Counter-citation is required on historical sources. Full stop. Either you post a historical analysis saying otherwise or you accept it.

The court is way too powerful. Politicians need to have an over ride mechanism. If they don't like something the court mandates, just over ride them. The courts have far far too much power. The other thing is this bullshit 2 party system. There needs to be 4 parties. Hard right, center right, center left and hard left.

If biden had any decency, he should work on funding a 4 party system.

Agreed, it's not only just too powerful but also too political. Entire political parties planning multiple decades takeovers entirely to push forward their political ideologies, and taking names from extreme far right/left legal groups who don't even deal in facts.

(IE: Federalist Society - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com))

True, unfortunately.

It's what Republicans did when they needed to, so why not Democrats? We literally have a court that is taking away constitutional rights from Americans. If that isn't the perfect reason to expand or shrink the court, nothing is. We don't take away rights in America. Fascists do that.

So are you implying that politicians have a better grasp on the law than supreme court justices?

Uuh, there is an override mechanism. It's called the constitution. 3/4 of the states can agree to make pretty much any changes to it they want. People far more intelligent than you set the system up in the way they did. But it seems you people don't like the basic principals of checks and balances.

Lastly, all this melodrama of how terrible SCOTUS is, how we need to stack the court so congress can do everything they want.... based on an action absolutely nobody has been able to make a valid legal argument against. Nobody can say it wasn't the correct decision made based on the contents of the constitution and federal law that presently exist. So **** the system, destroy the entire foundation of the country just because it works as intended and you couldn't get your way?

What is this, 6+ edits later, lol. Good grief. Spinning and spinning.

Again, US v. Miller was addressing the specific instrument used not the overall "right to bear arms." I continued to ask you why the appellate case via US v. Tot (where you copy and pasted repeatedly) holds more weight to you compared to the SCOTUS decision. Remember context, the Miller/Tot decisions were during a period of gun control legislation where it was in its infancy. In order for cases to reach SCOTUS, there must challenges. Secondly, the idea of an item being agreed upon by the courts doesn't mean its infallible--Brown v. Board of Education proved that.

Lastly, you're using a perspective opinion piece from an ACLU lawyer and then an opinion piece from a retired SCOTUS justice. Both are entitled to their opinions, but why does a single retired opinion of a SCOTUS have more weight than a decided SC decision to you? You used the term "expert," is the retired SC justice and ACLU 20-something lawyer more of an expert than the sitting SC justices? What do you think?

Because he's a Republican. It's as simple as that. 😆

And they ruled the militia reasoning on that specific instrument. As it was the consensus at the time, and two centuries. I don't get what the problem is.

Oh. You're talking about the SCOTUS decision AFTER the 1970's activism which changed the judicial and historical consensus for conservatives. Thanks for FINALLY linking, now I know what you're actually talking about. This all could have been cleared up a long time ago if you did that earlier (😆):

I'm not saying the old viewpoint holds more weight than the new one. I'm saying the meaning primarily changed due to political activism that started in the 1970's. I'm telling you WHY there is a new viewpoint. That's not an argument against the legal reasoning. That's just me saying it was activism.

I won't call this a straw-man, it seems you made an honest mistake.

I'm going to trust legal experts, yes. Not exactly a wild proposition. Surely you can refute their claims that 1970's activism changed the militia consensus. You're also forgetting the Political History Department article,

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

But now that you know my actual claim (lol), I don't think there should be any issues.

So I finally get what happened,

You think I'm trying to say the old consensus is the more proper or correct than the new one. That wasn't my claim or point. My point is the new one happened due to political activism. Which is why I'm purely interested in historical facts and not budging, rather than subjective legal arguments.

Hence the original post saying these words,

Oh golly, what a big mis-understanding!

How about term limits?

I think that's a good idea for any member of any of the 3 branches of government.

Did I catch the edits yet?

You're missing the context though, they were not addressing the question of the right to bear arms, especially related to the matter of a militia, and more importantly, or not. It was whether the plaintiff had the right to the specific instrument involved; a sawed off shotgun. This "consensus" was predicated on an inherent lack of division; like I said, gun control was in its infancy. Arbitration isn't necessary if there's no need for mediation. You cited the Tot decision time and time again, yet fail to understand its relevance. Reliance on "consensus" for this is silly, and misses context, just like we don't disagree with Brown v. Board of Education even though it went against "consensus" by overruling established precedent.

You're copying and pasting opinions. If the 70s "activism" caused a change in the dynamics, why did it take an additional 40 years until it was addressed by SCOTUS? You really think Heller was the first case to find its way through the legal weeds? Heller was the first case to actually address the right to bear arms. The court punted other cases time and time again before Heller. Perhaps it was the "late game" being played by "activists." Seems awfully convenient, then again, almost anything these days has an "activist" angle being attached to it so perhaps all matters can be applied by that brush.

You're copying and pasting from another progressive from the Brennan Center writing for politico. Okay, you can trust whoever your heart desires. I don't declare my thoughts, or thoughts of others, being higher than the Supreme Court. I'm on a forum to discuss my thoughts on issues, not CTRL-C and CTRL-V others.

*waits to see what else gets copy and pasted*