SCOTUS Shredding the Constitution!

SCOTUS Shredding the Constitution!

This is a discussion on SCOTUS Shredding the Constitution! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. It just gets sadder......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: SCOTUS Shredding the Constitution!

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array RemMod597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Snohomish County, WA
    Posts
    748


    Anti-gun billionaires + Low info voters = Passage of Washington I-594


  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Ah, so THAT'S the counterpoint to Democratic Underground. I was wondering where the loony balance was going to be established...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,195
    wow. here we go...
    "Just blame Sixto"

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,824
    Just so I am not missing anything. He's innocent, they know he's innocent, the court told him he should not have fought the suit and he has to pay the other side's lawyer fees? What?
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gastonville
    Posts
    6,687
    I'm confused. :(
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Here is a link to what brought about this suit in the first place. Looks like they are fighting over a contract to make a good deal of money.

    http://protectourparks.wordpress.com...agara-falls-3/
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  7. #7
    Member Array 9mmPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    257
    SCOTUS has no respect for the constitution, those who shred the 2A rights should be kicked out of office!
    Bushmaster XM15 E2S Shorty
    Walther P99 .40 S&W
    Romanian WASR GP 10/63
    Remington model 700 30-06
    Savage Model 62 .22lr
    Glock 19 gen 3 TALO

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    So, we have one unattributed blog and one blog written by the plaintiff's son. THAT sounds like a fair and reasonable accounting of events...

    Has anyone bothered to find, you know, actual third party news with any of those pesky facts in this case? Or do we just say: "guy wants millions (half from the Canadian government), guy didn't get millions (half from the Canadian government), therefore the Constitution is meaningless." Because, you know, that makes PERFECT sense...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    A bit more on the story (from Dec 2009, before the case was sent to SCOTUS)...

    http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/tri...3665654-1.html

    Apparently Papa Windsor is a lawyer, Junior Windsor owns a tourism company, and they want a chance to bid on the Niagara Falls boat tours. They have actually been having success in forcing the boat tour leases to face competitive bidding, but apparently that wan't enough; Papa decided to sue everyone even remotely involved with the process. When he lost, he just kept filing more and more lawsuits, until an appellate judge said this:

    "Windsor's persistently litigious behavior undermines the integrity of the consent final order and judgment submitted by the parties and signed by the court in this case as well as the other orders thus far issued by the court, through repeated unsubstantiated attacks, procedurally improper post-judgment motions and increasingly bitter rhetoric," Evans wrote. "Windsor's continued filing of frivolous, improper post-judgment motions also continues to subject plaintiffs to needless trouble and expense."
    Papa's response? From the article, this:

    Last month, Windsor filed a lawsuit against New York State Parks, the Office of the state Comptroller, the attorney general, Gov. David Paterson, former state parks commissioner Ed Rutkowski and Maid of the Mist officials...
    Every lower court finds, without exception, that Papa is wasting the courts time and money, and is filing lawsuit after lawsuit for the sole purpose of harrassment. So, Papa decides to send his million lawsuits to SCOTUS. SCOTUS says, in effect, "you've wasted enough of the taxpayers time and money, we're not going to entertain this further - go do what the lower courts have told you to do."

    This, THIS, somehow becomes a case of SCOTUS destroying the Constitution? The Constitution grants us the right to have the SUPREME COURT listen to our filing of hundreds of frivilous and harrassing lawsuits, even after being told to stop by numerous lower courts? I must have missed that Article...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    So, we have one unattributed blog and one blog written by the plaintiff's son. THAT sounds like a fair and reasonable accounting of events...
    +1
    A very astute observation.

    A bit more on the story (from Dec 2009, before the case was sent to SCOTUS)...

    Thanks for the rest of the story.

  11. #11
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    All levels of the federal courts can block abusive filers of lawsuits, while rare it is not unheard of. A large number of these cases involve incarcerated inmates who file pro se lawsuits over everything from food complaints to cold toilet seats (usually as civil rights violations). They get to file free and for the obvious reasons, have a lot of time on their hands. They like it because they get "field trips" to the federal court for hearings, etc.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

  12. #12
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    I wrote a post about this earlier, but I must not have submitted it.

    The plaintiff in the case is acting as his own attorney - and he also wrote the Breitbart piece.

    The complaint to the USSC was apparently so clearly defective that the opposing side elected to waive their right to respond. Clearly, they trusted that the Court would reject the case in it's lack of merit.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  13. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,915
    OPFOR--- Thanks for the research.

    Its funny how people will jump up and down about blah blah constitution blah blah violation blah, but not look into the situation carefully.

    Here where I live we have a grocery store which was shut down for a string of food code violations; initially for 24 hours to give them time to fix the problems. They opened in 8 without authority and were then shut down again for 3 more days and ticketed with a 1K fine.

    A few folks are screaming that the store owner's constitutional rights were violated. "What right did the food inspector's have to shut him down. " " How dare the police close the store without a court order." " This is how they would do it in China, read one remark on a web site."

    Some folks just don't understand that these things are all perfectly reasonable code enforcement actions under existing law, under the State Constitution, and under the US Constitution. The action was nothing but routine ordinary stuff. Similarly, it seems like what the courts did in this case the OP posted was just routine reasonable stuff; the stuff of day to day litigation and how it gets handled and decided.

    Our constitution isn't a "do what ever you please anytime because it feels good to you" document. It gives freedoms with responsibilities and with very considerable governmental power to ---- govern.

    Those who don't want governance are living in a fantasy world. It would quickly devolve to chaos. Besides, folks get bent out of shape over rules that they don't like but not about rules they benefit from. Even the loudest anti-government voices know that they benefit from government or would know that, if they stopped for a few moments to think about it. You know, the same government that rounds up 125 Mafia figures; and that is a minor example of the good that flows from our constitution.

    Just looked at where the story came from. Oh well. Isn't that the guy who--never mind. There is a difference between fact reporting and fantasy.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,561
    Look, here's an article about me!
    Look how the government hurt me!
    Look at the supreme court, they let the government hurt me!
    Look, I'm writing a book about it!
    Look, I'm going to name it something!
    Look, I will be famous!
    Look, the book will be available in big book stores and even on line!
    Look, I have a web site!

    only thing missing is....

    Look, I'm an idiot!
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  15. #15
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Look, here's an article about me!
    Look how the government hurt me!
    Look at the supreme court, they let the government hurt me!
    Look, I'm writing a book about it!
    Look, I'm going to name it something!
    Look, I will be famous!
    Look, the book will be available in big book stores and even on line!
    Look, I have a web site!

    only thing missing is....

    Look, I'm an idiot!
    Oh, it was there, you just have to read between the lines.
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS ruling / NJ
    By rmilchman in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 01:52 PM
  2. New SCOTUS decision
    By tunes in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 04:22 PM
  3. Scotus ?
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2010, 12:49 PM
  4. Constitution
    By Pro2A in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 29th, 2010, 08:45 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 19th, 2009, 11:58 AM