Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 04:24:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: NY Judge: 2nd Amendment Doesn't Exist in My Courtroom Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <20240429200019.0000350d@example.com> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 43 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:24:36 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2417 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17cb048a913e8443$51270$2653240$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 2798 On 4/29/24 9:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article <20240429200019.0000350d@example.com>, > Rhino wrote: > >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:58:53 +0000 >> BTR1701 wrote: >> >>> First Hawaii, now this judge in New York. Maybe the law schools these >>> people are graduating from should spend less time teaching "social >>> activism" and more time teaching actual law. >>> >>> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrizNJXQ0iw > >> Is she finding wording in Amendment 14.5, like a clause >> that says parts of the Constitution and its Amendments can be ignored >> by any judge who finds them inconvenient? > > First Hawaii's legislature decides it can ignore the 2nd Amendment You mean Scalia's deliberate misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. You're too scared shitless to discuss the facts in evidence. and > now this judge in New York. Seems this is starting to be the go-to move > with the gun-grabbers: Can't get the rulings we want from the federal > courts and SCOTUS, so we'll just ignore the 2nd Amendment altogether and > do whatever we want. > > And, of course, the people who support this judge would have screeching > meltdowns if other judges started ignoring the parts of the Constitution > they *like*. This is other of those 'rules' that only works one way: if > it benefits the Agenda, it's cool; if it doesn't it's an affront to all > that's good and decent. > > And these are the people who are constantly beating their chests in > defense of "muh democracy!" > > IMHO, being a Constitution Denier ought to be grounds for immediate > removal from the bench. (And it probably would be if we were talking > about a... ahem... *different* judge.)