• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan shooting suspect's parents willfully disregarded signs that their son was a threat

rahl said:
So you’ve never answered it. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Of course I have.

The fact that you missed the rest of the conversation doesn't mean I need to do extra work.

If you are curious go look, .....or dont......your call.
 
NolanVoyd said:
This is an absolute fact.
Click to expand...
Correct. The Supreme Court not hearing a case says absolutely nothing as to it’s constitutionality.
NolanVoyd said:
If the appeals court upholds a law, and the Supreme Court declines to take it up on appeal, then the law stands as constitutional.
Click to expand...
No ruling has been made as to its constitutionality.
 
rahl said:
Correct. The Supreme Court not hearing a case says absolutely nothing as to it’s constitutionality.

No ruling has been made as to its constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Yes actually if the Supreme Court declines to take it up, that means they let the appeals court ruling stand, if the appeals court upheld it, then the fact that the Supreme Court declines to take it up means the Supreme Court agrees to let it stand as constitutional.

That means the law is constitutional.
 
rahl said:
Which post number? We both know you are trolling. So does everyone else.
Click to expand...
Do you think I know which post number?

Why would I know that?

Like I already told you, it was hours ago. If you are curious go look. Or don't. Your call.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Yes actually if the Supreme Court declines to take it up, that means they let the appeals court ruling stand, if the appeals court upheld it, then the fact that the Supreme Court declines to take it up means the Supreme Court agrees to let it stand as constitutional.

That means the law is constitutional.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this. It’s not how constitutional law works. If the Supreme Court does not hear a case, it does not speak to the constitutionality of a law.
 
rahl said:
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this. It’s not how constitutional law works. If the Supreme Court does not hear a case, it does not speak to the constitutionality of a law.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is how it works.
 
NolanVoyd said:
It absolutely is how it works.
Click to expand...
Not in the US. Unless they hear the case and make a ruling, they have not spoken to its constitutionality. This is very basic constitutional law.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Because laws limiting magazine size have been upheld.
Click to expand...
that is akin to saying you support slavery because at one time the Supreme Court allowed it. that is a cowardly answer. We are asking you why you support it-not whether it is constitutional
 
Rucker61 said:
Holding a position you can't defend seems antithetical to the purpose of this debate forum.

Why are you here if not to defend the positions you present?
Click to expand...
I suggest he supports such limits because it will annoy people who vote differently than he does, but he doesn't want to admit to that. He doesn't even try to come up with a facade to cover his pretextual reason: he merely says "Lines can be drawn".
 
RF667799 said:
We (you and I) are talking about the lines you are trying to draw, based on your overestimation of your knowledge and authority. Not some vague appeal to the authority of others.
Click to expand...
He won't tell you why a line needs to be drawn. All you will get is the bullshit that since LINES are drawn in other areas, one MUST be drawn here. He cannot tell you why or where the line should be drawn but only that it must be. It is because the main purpose is to harass lawful gun owners.
 
rahl said:
Not in the US. Unless they hear the case and make a ruling, they have not spoken to its constitutionality. This is very basic constitutional law.
Click to expand...
No.

If the Supreme Court declines, the lower court ruling stands, the case is law.

Basic facts.
 
TurtleDude said:
He won't tell you why a line needs to be drawn. All you will get is the bullshit that since LINES are drawn in other areas, one MUST be drawn here. He cannot tell you why or where the line should be drawn but only that it must be. It is because the main purpose is to harass lawful gun owners.
Click to expand...
Such a liar.

We covered that already. You know better.

That is why you are ignored. Bad faith. No honor.
 
NolanVoyd said:
No.

If the Supreme Court declines, the lower court ruling stands, the case is law.

Basic facts.
Click to expand...
since you appear to be a legal scholar-what will happen to say the Californian ban on normal capacity magazines if the Supreme court holds that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review in the pending NY carry case that has been argued
 
NolanVoyd said:
Such a liar.

We covered that already. You know better.

That is why you are ignored. Bad faith. No honor.
Click to expand...
you have failed to tell us WHY a line is proper=that there are lines drawn for age on buying booze is not an argument
 
TurtleDude said:
you have failed to tell us WHY a line is proper=that there are lines drawn for age on buying booze is not an argument
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I have told you repeatedly. Balancing competing interests. That is why. I have explained that to you over and over.

We covered that already. You know better.

That is why you are ignored. Bad faith. No honor.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Nonsense. I have told you repeatedly. Balancing competing interests. That is why. I have explained that to you over and over.

We covered that already. You know better.

That is why you are ignored. Bad faith. No honor.
Click to expand...
that's bullshit. and you are unable to tell us when a magazine limit is a violation of the second amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's bullshit. and you are unable to tell us when a magazine limit is a violation of the second amendment.
Click to expand...
No. That is a fact.

The court balances interests, individual rights and liberties against public safety and general welfare, for example.

You have no honor. You are dishonest

You have said you are a retired Federal prosecutor but it is a lie.

I have repeatedly had to correct you and explain very basic legal concepts to you.
 
NolanVoyd said:
No. That is a fact.

The court balances interests, individual rights and liberties against public safety and general welfare, for example.

You have no honor. You are dishonest

You have said you are a retired Federal prosecutor but it is a lie.

I have repeatedly had to correct you and explain very basic legal concepts to you.
Click to expand...
your silly insults are almost as stupid as your lame argument. You cannot tell us why ten rounds is a proper limit. We all know why. You haven't corrected anyone. when asked why you support magazine limits while PRETENDING to be pro second amendment, we get this bullshit

1) since lines can be drawn, they are proper

2) since lines have been upheld, they are good

3) no one needs a 30 round magazine so a ten round limit is proper

when I see such pathetic arguments, which appear to be pulled out of one's six, I can safely assume that is because the specious reasons you are mouthing, are merely a facade for another reason, a reason that you are afraid to publicly utter.
 
rahl said:
Yes

In that district. Yes. But it does not speak to the constitutionality of the law.
Click to expand...

You have it wrong.

If the court allows a law to stand, then that law is constitutional, by declining to consider an appeal the Supreme Court the Supreme Court confirms the laws constitutionality.

You won't listen to me but I think you will eventually realize your mistake.
 
NolanVoyd said:
You have it wrong.

If the court allows a law to stand, then that law is constitutional, by declining to consider an appeal the Supreme Court the Supreme Court confirms the laws constitutionality.

You won't listen to me but I think you will eventually realize your mistake.
Click to expand...
there are many reasons why the USSC declines to review something. One of the reasons is that there is a pending case that might resolve the issue. If the Court holds that restrictions on gun rights need to be reviewed at the "strict scrutiny" level, what do you think that will do to your beloved Californian Magazine ban?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom