The Jazz Man displays lack of legal knowledge
June 28, 2010
The Supreme Court of the UNited States overturned Chicago’s Gun ban today with a 5-4 decision. The Jazz Man who claims to support the 2nd amendment is angry about this ruling. Ever the legal scholar the Jazz Man explains why he is against this ruling.
The Jazz Man clearly doesn’t realize the 2nd amendment is a Federal issue that supersedes State law. He then gets challenge on this and once against shows his lack of legal knowledge.
So the Jazz Man now believes himself to be a legal scholar besides a Scientist and Political analysts. He’s a jack of all trades and an expert of none. The Jazz Man is really good at one thing, being a total fool!
Heres one ya big dufus.By Al Reuters no less.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BR38320091228
I’m sorry but in his mind this would be biased……he would claim some wingnuts have infilterated al-reuters…..or they are nazis, or racist.. The ONLY unbaised source he would accept….is his OWN OPINION. So the only possible link he would accept is if this poster linked backed to his own website.
It is a complete and total circle jerk.
Another from the Boston Globe,a bastion of right wingnuts/
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/02/14/imaginary_fiends/
Well he could always read the supreme courts dissertation and dissenting opinions on it. Personally I found that they were rather interesting, contrary to what many people think that the ruling was cut and dry, the majority of the dissenting were against the law.
But reading, tough stuff.
Indeed it is. Especially when it is much easier to grab OPINIONS out of thin air and not facts.
Well it is right to assume that he has also thrown facts under the bus too. But he did that a while back!
“I’m generally in favor of the 2nd amendment”
The be-mulleted malamute is as supportive of the right to bear arms as he is freedoms of speech (particularly opposing viewpoints) being expressed on Little Unseen Footballs.
I’m generally in favor of freedom of expression.
I’m generally in favor of a free press.
I’m generally in favor of legally obtained warrants.
I’m generally in favor of due process.
I’m generally in favor of trials by jury.
I’m generally in favor of reasonable bail…
Charles Foster Johnson
He’s generally in favor of gulags for “seditious wingnuts and bigots”, too…
Kolyma II, here we come!!!
And why does Charles Foster act and think like this?
Rosebud[!!!!!!]…
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jipboWI9uiE
Hm, does he have a particular penchant for, say, possibly, Wild Irish Rosebud?……
By Chuck’s logic Roe v Wade is “a very bad ruling” because it takes rights away from states.
This is a great example. Thank you. I will be using this against all of my enlightened friends.
What the heck; by Chuck’s logic; Brown v Board of Education is “a very bad ruling” because it takes rights away from states. C’mon, Reggie, show me why they’re different.
ah, hoss! Hold on there! The Supreme Court decided it. That makes it legal unless you want to appeal to the Almighty (that you don’t believe in). They don’t call it the “Highest Court in the Land” because there is one more above it.
It is as legal as any other Supreme Court decision whether you like it or not. As for uncontroversial, well, many Supreme Court cases are Controversial. Brown v. Board of Education was extremely controversial. Are you saying the Court shouldn’t have handed it down because it was controversial? Chuck, old boy, I never expected to find out that you are a seggregationist.
You learn something new every day you don’t die…
You forgot about the UN. When you’re soused on proggy juice, the UN is a higher power than the SCOTUS.
The saddest thing about his post is that Chawuz, clearly a Constitutional scholar second only to our President, seems to have never heard of the 10th amendment, which makes it quite clear that first 9 amendments — including the 2nd — are Federal in nature.
Conservatives, most of whom favor a very literal reading of the Constitution, wouldn’t see the Chicago case as being an issue of States’ rights, because the 2nd Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, is one of the few powers the Federal Government reserved for itself.
But what do you expect? Without a Nazi bogeyman involved, Queeg is lost.
Wow….expert flag analyst, dogwhistle acoustic technician, correlator tool operator, internet climate scientist AND Constitutional scholar?
Is there anything he can’t do?
/besides say “No” to seconds and thirds?
KGB said,
The Federal Government didn’t reserve for itself squat, the States gave voluntarily the enumerated powers to the Federal Government, and nothing else. The States created the Federal Government by writing and ratifying the Constitution.
You’re right. That wasn’t worded very well by me.
The points stands, however, that the right to bear arms isn’t (shouldn’t be) open to local curtailment any more than a state has the right to take away freedom of assembly. By trying to frame this as conservatives supporting the “taking away” of rights from States, he’s displaying a deep ignorance of what the Constitution says. Following his logic, there isn’t a single matter that the States couldn’t decide on their own; in which case the Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Overlook put it better than me:
He also seems to think that conservatives are confused about Big Fed Gov v. Smaller State Gov v. individual rights. Where constitutional rights pertain to the individual, no town, city, state, or the nation itself can deny them.
The man really shouldn’t be blogging about anything other than how to write marginally functional code.
What field of study does SChmuck NOT claim expertise in? According to him he is a Master Climate Scientist, a Wizard at ‘net programming, a pioneer in blogging, and now a Constitutional Scholar.
What a steaming pile of stinking turds is that creature. I will not sully the race of humans by claiming kinship.
Don’t forget the flags…..he seems intent on autobeclowning over flags.
“As for whether this ruling is completely legal and uncontroversial…”
Perhaps the Wally is not aware of the “case or controversy” clause of the constitution, which requires that the Supreme Court only hear a case or controversy – and not give advisory opinions.
There are nine (an odd number) of Supreme Justices because the framers anticipated that some might fall on different sides of a controversy. Hence 5-4 decisions: which are not only “legal” but also PRECEDENT.
I am not sure too many high schoolers would make this juvenile a complaint about an outcome they disagree with.
He also seems to think that conservatives are confused about Big Fed Gov v. Smaller State Gov v. individual rights. Where constitutional rights pertain to the individual, no town, city, state, or the nation itself can deny them.
The Wally could never have been a conservative with the embarrassingly little understanding of federalism – or the constitution – that he reveals here.
Indeed, the 5-4 is more the rule than the exception, given the political bent of the judges. You have the liberal activists on one side, and the conservative originalists on the other. Fortunately, Kennedy seems more the latter than the former these days, and it may be that Zero’s unprecedented derision of the Court during the SOTU speech may have driven Kennedy to a permanent hop over the fence.
As for your Constitutional scholar chops, there, Snowball, perhaps you’d like to enlighten us as to your analysis of the following: Weeks v. U.S., Gideon v. Wainwright, Near v. Minnesota, Mapp v. Ohio, Regents v. Bakke, Rochin v. California, Escobedo v. Illinois, and Baker v. Carr. Each established a very important Constitutional principle and since you know so fucking much about what constitutes 14th Amendment protection, maybe we can have the benefit of your vast expertise in Constitutional law.
Of course, it explains why you like Elena Kagan so much. She’s as ignorant of Constitutional law as you and Obama.
And let’s face it, Snowball – Bakke was a GIFT. Even YOU can probably slice and dice that one.
“I’m generally in favor of the 2nd amendment”
Any bets that Charles is probably referring to the politically correct form of gun ownership, aka limited duck hunting by elitists escorted by armed bodyguards 24 hours a day
“The only sources I’ve seen to back up this claim are pro-gun sources”
So by his logic if the Brady Campaign or VPC doesn’t say it’s there, then it’s not there, I think it’s about time he goes looking for creationist sources for his pro-evolution views if he’s going to use that logic
so according to his logic opposing nanny statism means you oppose states rights?