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: <t9-cnVazP5hwcLL7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20240429200019.0000350d@example.com> <atropos-9B9ACB.19523129042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-9B9ACB.19523129042024@news.giganews.com>
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 <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:58:53 +0000
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> 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.)