John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today

[JimThornTX]

Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

The SCOTUS is supposed to "interpret" the written law, i.e. the Constitution, not give personal opinion on it.

Again, the Constitution is clearly written. It's intentions are quite clear. It's the government, the lawyers, and the Supreme Court, that unfortunately can't see the forest for the trees. They let feelings and emotions and beliefs control their actions. And the end result is the further erosion of our 2A rights. One law and one court decision at a time.

[AdamSmith22134]

Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

The SCOTUS is supposed to "interpret" the written law, i.e. the Constitution, not give personal opinion on it.

Again, the Constitution is clearly written. It's intentions are quite clear. It's the government, the lawyers, and the Supreme Court, that unfortunately can't see the forest for the trees. They let feelings and emotions and beliefs control their actions. And the end result is the further erosion of our 2A rights. One law and one court decision at a time.

How do you logically distinguish between "interpreting the written law" and "give personal opinion on it"?

If you read what they say in their opinions and dissents, they are clearing stating what they believe the law says.

For 4 of them, they believe this is all about militia duty, which they now believe has been superseded and is no longer relevant.

That's all the minority is saying.

And the 5 on the majority are saying they believe militia service has nothing at all to do with the right to defend yourself IN YOUR HOME.

And even Scalia says the States have the power to regulate Open or Concealed Carry as they see fit.

That's how they are "interpreting" the law in light of the history around the law.

Ergo I really really hope Christie gets elected the next time around, as President, so he can appoint "less liberal" USSC justices when several of these we have now retire.

Pray for Chris Christie.

[bozwell]

Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

The SCOTUS is supposed to "interpret" the written law, i.e. the Constitution, not give personal opinion on it.

Again, the Constitution is clearly written. It's intentions are quite clear. It's the government, the lawyers, and the Supreme Court, that unfortunately can't see the forest for the trees. They let feelings and emotions and beliefs control their actions. And the end result is the further erosion of our 2A rights. One law and one court decision at a time.

You can't write a legal opinion without having an opinion.  Saying justices on the SC shouldn't have opinions about the Constitution is saying they shouldn't do their job.  While I have my own opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted, SCOTUS has been reviewing laws in view of the Constitution and interpreting those seemingly simple words for centuries.  It's silly to ignore the fact that reasonable minds can disagree on numerous areas of the Constitution (and have been disagreeing for centuries).  Moreover, you're doing just what you say SCOTUS shouldn't do - giving an opinion and with no citation to back it up for that matter.  Whether you disagree with them or not, the justices at least provide ample support for their positions when they write their opinions.  Now if they start saying "it's clearly written, quite clear, and you other justices are just emotional sissies" - then we have a reason to complain about SCOTUS giving "opinions". 

For that matter, trivializing the opinions of people who disagree with you as having "minds clouded by feelings and emotions" is basically just a cop out and is the same sort of straw man argument/personal attack that is so rampant in today's society.  Law is full of disagreement, and one thing lawyers (hopefully) learn to do is disagree civilly.  I don't understand why people can't state their opinion and leave it at that... but there's definitely a pattern these days of people stating their opinion, followed by personal attack/straw man argument for good measure.  Then again, it's legal debate by laymen on the Internet, so I don't know why I should expect more.

In any event, the word opinion isn't some tainted word, especially in the context of the Supreme Court.  Hell, the documents they issue announcing their holding on a particular case are formally known as opinions. 

[IDescribe]

2A is not cut and dry and absolute to its broadest possible meanings.  That might be scary to some people, but it is what it is.  People rightfully focus on the latter half of the amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But when they start to define words to talk about what that clause means, it seems to be 'bear' and 'arms' that are the usual words people feel need to be clarified.  But there's another important word there -- infringe.  Infringe means to break or violate.   That leaves room for judicial interpretation.  What constitutes a right being broken?  If I legally own a variety of small arms, but I am barred from owning one particular class of small arms, has my right to own small arms been broken?  Or has it been limited?  Is limiting a right the same as breaking it?  Maybe it is.  We can make the argument that limiting a right is breaking a right, but that doesn't mean SCOTUS will agree with our argument.  And I want to be clear here -- this is not my arguing for any of this.  This is my pointing out that the room for a range of interpretation exists in the language, and the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority/responsibility to interpret it.  Would they agree by majority that any limitation at all constitutes breaking that right?  They haven't with other rights. 

[JimThornTX]

How do you logically distinguish between "interpreting the written law" and "give personal opinion on it"?

For 4 of them, they believe this is all about militia duty, which they now believe has been superseded and is no longer relevant.

And the 5 on the majority are saying they believe militia service has nothing at all to do with the right to defend yourself IN YOUR HOME.

Exactly my point. For decades SCOTUS decisions have been made right down the middle based on political ideology. If the judges were truly impartial, and if they read and interpreted the law as it's clearly written, the decisions would be unanimous.

And even Scalia says the States have the power to regulate Open or Concealed Carry as they see fit.

Which is wrong on his part because the 2A is quite clear on no infringement of the bearing of arms. By my not being allowed to bear arms in an open-carry fashion if I choose to, my 2A rights are being infringed.

Ergo I really really hope Christie gets elected the next time around...

That much is painfully obvious. As long as the GOP continues to nominate Moderate establishment RINO's for President, the GOP will continue to lose elections. The Libertarian wing and TEA Party wing of the GOP is here to stay. And we will not rest until we purge the GOP of Moderates, RINO's, and the spineless cowards that continue to give in to the irrational demands of the Socialist Democratic Party.

Pray for Chris Christie.

I pray he loses his Governor election. NJ is a blue state, let the Dems have it. That way Christie will fade away into obscurity and we can then look forward to nominating a real Conservative for President like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

[Mad Macs]

That much is painfully obvious. As long as the GOP continues to nominate Moderate establishment RINO's for President, the GOP will continue to lose elections. The Libertarian wing and TEA Party wing of the GOP is here to stay. And we will not rest until we purge the GOP of Moderates, RINO's, and the spineless cowards that continue to give in to the irrational demands of the Socialist Democratic Party.

Libertarians have their faults too.  They pick and choose the civil liberties they want to uphold.  They think that people should be left to starve if they can't afford to feed themselves, yet have no problem inserting themselves into a uterus to protect the unborn.  That doesn't make any sense.

Also, don't confuse "Socialism" with "people should be treated the same".  Civil liberties don't make us a socialist country.

[bozwell]

That much is painfully obvious. As long as the GOP continues to nominate Moderate establishment RINO's for President, the GOP will continue to lose elections. The Libertarian wing and TEA Party wing of the GOP is here to stay. And we will not rest until we purge the GOP of Moderates, RINO's, and the spineless cowards that continue to give in to the irrational demands of the Socialist Democratic Party.

Libertarians have their faults too.  They pick and choose the civil liberties they want to uphold.  They think that people should be left to starve if they can't afford to feed themselves, yet have no problem inserting themselves into a uterus to protect the unborn.  That doesn't make any sense.

Also, don't confuse "Socialism" with "people should be treated the same".  Civil liberties don't make us a socialist country.

No offense Macs, but I don't think you understand the Libertarian position on abortion.  This is evidenced by the fact you have the LP's position on the issue backwards.  While they don't weigh in on the moral issue of abortion, the official party platform and the view of most Libertarians is that government should be kept out of the issue and it's up to the individuals to make the decision as to whether it's right to have an abortion. 

[Grendel]

Back on topic please. No more discussion of abortion, either pro or anti. If you can't keep to the point, which is, lest we forget, this UN Treaty signed by Lurch, the thread is going away.

[AdamSmith22134]

It's funny how minds can wander far off topic.

Treaties are for the conduct of business OUTSIDE the nation not WITHIN the nation.

Ergo anyone paranoid enough to fear that a treaty is going to affect their gun rights at home is ... well ... r e a l l y   p a r a n o i d.

[Skookum]

Treaties are for the conduct of business OUTSIDE the nation not WITHIN the nation.

Many treaties affect the conduct of business within our nation ? e.g., treaties with Indian tribes, extradition treaties.

Per Wikipedia:

In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.  ?  For example, a treaty may prohibit states from imposing capital punishment on foreign nationals ? .