Codrea: Stevens’ Call to Repeal Second Amendment Caps a Career of Judicial Subversion

RTWT.

Tyrants gotta tyrant.

(Via Twitter)

34 responses to “Codrea: Stevens’ Call to Repeal Second Amendment Caps a Career of Judicial Subversion

  1. This is why 9 political appointees should never have the last word on what is or is not constitutional ( and the Constitution doesn’t say they should).

    • Northgunner

      They don’t.

      People only imagine that they do.
      Just like they imagine that black robed nazgul priests and their orc and orcette enforcers have any legitimacy.

      Free your mind!

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
      Northgunner III

    • Right! That was recognized early in the Republic:

      “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
      –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

  2. He can screw himself…

  3. You would think that leftists like Stevens would be able to see the failed results which leftist policies have already amply demonstrated against America.

    Actually they do. That is why they want more of it. It’s their intention to remove America from the American people. Unfortunately, they have been too successful at doing that, and they insist on more of it because they intend to remove those who have always been Americans and replace them with their selected interbreeds.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      Leftists (in the sense of the true believers) don’t understand that reality doesn’t bend to their policies and theories. That’s why, no matter how often, and how predictably, their theories and policies fail, they always claim that it just wasn’t implemented properly, but that THIS TIME they’ll get right.

      Those who merely use Leftism as a tactic don’t care that the theories and policies never work out. For their purposes – increasing control over a populace – it works just fine.

  4. When all reasonable societal disciplines are removed from the negroid “cultures”, the coloreds sink to ever lowering levels of depraved intelligence and behavior. In the present jewish and leftist PC era where those kosher “ideals” have been let loose on what was once a somewhat reasonable and functioning American society, the negroids have been turned loose by their jewish and leftist societal change agents allowing them to mount increasingly loud and depraved mouthings against White people.

    These black mouthings might be somewhat humorous – if they had not been allowed to also become so inherently and stupidly dangerous utterings which pose an increasingly evil threat to all of America’s decent people. Certain examples of a negroid’s depraved intelligence are never difficult to find. This Aunt Jemima below never learned to make runny pancakes, I’m sure, but she has been taught that she is now empowered and is spreading her stinky, runny fertilizer until it runs down and overflows from off her cheeks.

    Stevens would be proud.

    “I DON’T NEED GUN CONTROL LAWS, I NEED WHITE PEOPLE LAWS”

    “What’s the point in gun reform when white people don’t understand how destructive they are? Why limit access to weapons when, in the case of my Black body, white people ARE the weapon? At this point, I don’t need laws making it harder for people to get guns (especially since the main people who will be affected by these laws are Black and brown folks). I need laws making it harder for white people to be white.

    I need a law that mandates white men receive a lifetime of counseling, not because of mental illness, but to prevent them from raping and killing other people when they find out they’re not entitled to everything on this land.

    I need a law that requires white women to report their brothers, fathers, boyfriends, and husbands whenever they even whisper something remotely prejudiced, or serve jail time with the men they enable.

    I need a law that requires white people pay reparations to Black women because maybe if they didn’t have so much money, they wouldn’t have the resources to destroy people and things.” [More dark sputterings at the link]

    View at Medium.com

    • Northgunner

      Ok ms willis, you want to go there, let’s do it!

      I’m your huckleberry!

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
      Northgunner III

    • Northgunner

      And of course one couldn’t have the utter freak show that the bogus march was without having the terminally brainless pussihatted catladies, fruity dragqueens and assorted granola nuts and commie flakes…

      They are waay outta their league if they think anyone here’s going to disarm because their widdle feelings are hurt or they’re feeling ‘triggered’.

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
      Northgunner III

      • wendystringer48088

        “They are waay outta their league if they think anyone here’s going to disarm because their widdle feelings are hurt or they’re feeling ‘triggered’.”

        They think they will get political power and pass the laws and have the police enforce them.
        Like passing laws against LGBT discrimination and putting Christian bakers and florists out of business who refuse to comply with their demands to accept their lifestyle.
        They certainly don’t see themselves as the ones on the front lines doing the hard work to take the guns away from the deplorables. That would be the job of the police.
        They believe they can just gather enough support and get laws passed and give the orders and then sit back and enjoy the fireworks without any risk in any way themselves.
        So far it looks to me like they have been right.
        So far…
        Maybe one day if things get out of control enough that will change though…

        • Northgunner

          “…They certainly don’t see themselves as the ones on the front lines doing the hard work to take the guns away from the deplorables. That would be the job of the police.
          They believe they can just gather enough support and get laws passed and give the orders and then sit back and enjoy the fireworks without any risk in any way themselves.
          So far it looks to me like they have been right.
          So far…”

          They are welcome to pass any legislative bowel movement their depraved little hearts desire.

          Enforcement is an entirely different matter, one that has about a snowball’s chance in South Florida. There aren’t enough badged orcs and orcettes to make it happen; less after being thinned out by gunowners acting in righteous self-defense.

          What will they do once the confiscation raids start and then are abruptly halted as folks consider it’s open season on badged orcs and orcettes and there’s no bag limit?

          Will them stomp and pout and throw temper tantrums in public and try to act out violently in public?…attack gunshops and gunowners?…try to force their way into local gunshows to attack attendees?

          Any of the above and the freaks and misfits would be bleeding out in the streets.

          Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
          Northgunner III

  5. appointed to 7th Circuit by Richard Nixon

    elevated to SC by Gerald Ford

    somewhere here there’s a pattern

    • DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

      Word. The Kool-Aid drinkers marched in lockstep in those days. It was(and still is) a gigantic puppet show. The distractions for the sheeple which we see now were in full performance back then. Saw it with my own eyes.
      I still find it confusing that Nixon, who was so dogged going after the perjured Communist, Alger Hiss, could roll over and stab this country in the back so thoroughly by going off the gold standard. However, Tricky Dick had his own version of Colonel House: Henry Kissinger. We have been playing against a (((stacked deck))) for many years. Bleib ubrig.

      • “I still find it confusing that Nixon, who was so dogged going after the perjured Communist, Alger Hiss, could roll over and stab this country in the back so thoroughly by going off the gold standard”

        What’s confusing? Surely you can’t be under the impression that left or right want anything different, right? How’s that saying go…”When you’re at the table and can’t see the mark, you’re it.”

        Notice that even here, virtually 100% “right-wing,” that the group can be easily distinguished by the real underlying principle—those who wish to see individual liberty, and those who don’t. It’s true that left and right want “the law” to do different things–as if it ever could–but that’s derivative to the difference between people who want to impose upon others, and those who don’t.

  6. CamachoNOW

    Where are the assault pillows when you need them?

  7. > Call to Repeal Second Amendment

    Perhaps the Republicans in Congress should actually introduce a bill to repeal the Second Amendment, which would force each and every individual Democrat to have their position recorded as a vote.

    • William Munny

      ^THIS

    • I think there will also be some Republicans on that list as well.

      • >>> Call to Repeal Second Amendment
        >> Perhaps the Republicans in Congress should actually introduce a bill to repeal the Second Amendment, which would force each and every individual Democrat to have their position recorded as a vote.
        > I think there will also be some Republicans on that list as well.

        Fine. Let them get outed now for what they are.

        I don’t believe such a repeal has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. But the debate and vote not only be informative, but produce useful (if not entertaining) sound bites for pro-gun-owner candidates and internet meme creators.

  8. Supreme Court Schadenfreude: Mainstreaming the Left’s Demands for Gun confiscation.
    https://noqreport.com/2018/03/28/supreme-court-schadenfreude-mainstreaming-lefts-demands-gun-confiscation/
    While we on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right fully realise that the Left’s jihad against freedom is deadly serious. However, there are moments when it’s duplicity makes for what can only be
    described as pure schadenfreude. The Left’s increasingly shrill attacks against Liberty, with particular emphasis on the basic human right of self-defence poses a dilemma for them. On the one hand, they have to
    rally the troops, keeping them focused on the prize of Gun Confiscation. Meanwhile, they have to vehemently deny their obvious goal of Gun Confiscation to everyone else.

    So, given the Left’s two-faced war against liberty, it was quite amusing to see the reaction to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ New York Times piece demanding a repeal of the Second Amendment.
    While many a Leftist hailed another coming out of the authoritarian closet, others were not very delighted with the prospect that their Gun grabbing goal having just become mainstream.

  9. > Tyrants gotta tyrant.

  10. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.

    • Northgunner

      Great video like that needs another to help satairize hoggyboi and dykegurl.

      Murdoch Murdoch to the rescue! Crisis actors indeed….

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
      Northgunner III

  11. The US Congress can put anything they wish out of the purview of SCOTUS by law, if the president signs it.

    So far, I know of nothing that congress has acted on in that manner.

    On a related subject. Article IV of the US Constitution grants the power to defend the US from invasion to the executive branch, therefore using the US military and the funding thereof is completely legitimate.

    • “Therefore”??? You mean the appearance of some words somewhere can actually create legitimacy? That’s a remarkable theory, so plainly absurd that surely you meant “legality.” In that case yes…all the funding, all the looting to have the funding–hell, all the suffering and death for that matter–in most cases is completely legal.

  12. SW Richmond

    Is it time to cap Mrs. Crabapple yet? because I know who she is, and a whole lot more.

  13. It’s pretty clear that the original intent of the Second Amendment was that there would be neither a permanent standing army, nor what was known then as “select militias” – which would be today’s militarized law enforcement agencies, armed government agents, and the National Guard. The intent was that the people would be armed with military weapons, superior in force to anything the government could put in the field:

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
    –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    Up until the blatantly unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, this parity was possible, but due to shootouts between organized labor and police who were sent in to break the strikes, this law was put in place to disarm the workers – the tax on each gun regulated was equal to a month’s pay for an average worker. And the workers – as opposed to the rentier class from Wall Street – have continued to get screwed over by the Democrats, as well as the Republicans. Of course, non-military weapons would also fall under the coverage of the Second Amendment.

    That’s only part of it, the rest is the Public Duty Doctrine, of which most people are unaware: “It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

    Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

    The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

    The Public Duty Doctrine makes sense only with the presence of a universally armed citizenry, otherwise it is terrible and unjust and even sadistic – excusing gross negligence on the part of the government in not intervening in criminal acts, while depriving citizens of their only effective means of defense against those acts. So, for example, the police officers who hid and listened to the screaming as the shooting went on cannot be sued or face any sort of criminal liability, if they don’t want to intervene, they have no legally enforceable duty to do so. “Protect and Serve” is no guarantee of anything – and the officer who “retired” is getting a six-figure pension and police protection. And this legal doctrine is a real show-stopper, I’ve used it to stop liberal anti-Second Amendment arguments dead in their tracks, because most liberals think that police have a legally enforceable duty to protect them and their loved ones.

  14. Bonaventure

    Repeal the 19th Amendment.

  15. “Oops, That Anti-Gun ‘Kids” March Was Actually 90% Old Farts”

    ““Contrary to what’s been reported in many media accounts, the D.C. March for Our Lives crowd was not primarily made up of teenagers. Only about 10 percent of the participants were under 18,” Fisher said.

    So much for that liberal media narrative that this was a massive youth movement. Judging by the advanced age of most of the participants, this was more of a bowel movement,…”.

    https://downtrend.com/71superb/oops-that-anti-gun-kids-march-was-actually-90-old-farts/