10-06-2020, 07:05 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2020, 07:07 AM by Eric the Green.)
(10-06-2020, 01:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(10-05-2020, 11:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: No, I'm not in favor of rule by a small cluster of unelected jurists, but show me an alternative at this juncture.
Start with a set of reasonable compromises. Assume the other guy takes his values as seriously as you take yours. Give what the other guy really wants to have, stick to your basic position, and hope there is some intercept.
To start, assume an individual right to own and carry civilian weapons. Define civilian weapons in terms of power, size of weapon and one shot per trigger pull. If you feel it necessary, include the felon and insane exceptions.
But above all quit the idea that you are above the law, that your own values trump everybody else's.
That approach might work in the USA, which is a gun-obsessed society, generally-speaking, and not likely to go much further than this anytime soon. Laws to that effect might reduce gun violence and massacres to an extent.
But it shows that the constitution needs to be consulted, but not held as a literal absolute; that adjustments and definitions of terms need to be connected to the society of the time.
In the future, I hope the justices interpret the 2nd once again as applying to members of a militia rather than an individual right. The Court has now shifted so far to the right that this is also unlikely within a decade or two at least. Many scholars agree with me (and not with Bob) on this interpretation, and I would go even further myself, but my opinions on guns are not those of the USA's majority at present, and probably not those of the USA's founders, as Bob points out. But of course, aristocracy, slavery and other evils were also upheld by those esteemed folks.
Who's values "trump" others on this issue and others in federal courts depends now on the electoral college and the fortunes of life, death and retirement. Reforms to all of this are needed sometime in the future. If anything is to be accomplished in the next decade or two, the Court's membership will likely need to be expanded, and this is perfectly justified considering the extreme values and ideologies and the ruthless governance of today's right wing, which I assume to be a temporary anomaly that has to be brought to heel, and this also includes reducing or eliminating the senate filibuster for a while. This minority is truly heedless of values other than it's own narrow dogmas, which cause the leader's desk to function as a stone wall. The USA will continue to decline if it does not have a working government capable of making decisions on policies, which has not happened for 40 years. Such stalemate and regression is extremely unhealthy for our society.