Olbermann: States should ignore today's ruling and the U.S. should dissolve the Supreme Court

This is the SOP for Leftists. They're all about playing by the rules, until they don't like the outcome.

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022...u-s-should-dissolve-the-supreme-court-n478261

When the court ruled that denying marriage licenses to same sex couples is unconstitutional, the Leftists said it's the law of the land. They don't like the ruling on the 2nd Amendment? It's time to dissolve the Supreme Court.

They say democracy is in trouble, but fail to mention that they are the threat.

 

Well hell we should just ignore the gay marriage ruling.

 

Thats the strongest call for states rights ever made. Dissolving the SC would basically mean the states can do everything from killing gun owners or enslaving all Christians to killing illegal immigrants or enslaving all women...

But of course we all know Olberman is himself a non-issue. This is just a cry for more clicks. F him.

 

How does this guy have an audience?

Anyway, the thing he said about the SC enforcing its rulings is interesting. Back when I lived in EL Paso and Obamacare was being heard in the court, the lawyer who lived next door to me said the SC had to let it pass knowing if they shot it down Obama would ignore their ruling and with no enforcement power that would essentially neuter the SC going forward. So in order to keep the integrity of the court alive and well, Roberts gave it a thumbs up.

 

how influential do you think olbermann is? i doubt biden is calling in to olbermann's u tube channel for advice. get back to us when olbermann accepts his medal of freedom.

 

Keith Olbermann is a moron.

 

But.....But.... But..... we like that one!

 

Keith is always the spineless little traitor of a rat he has always been. Nothing new here. Wait till the next week's decisions are released....

 

He's saying what all the other Leftists are thinking. Kathy Hoschul is already saying she's going to make a law that will still infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/23/new-york-hochul-supreme-court-gun-00041715

 

the classic case of supreme court impotence was the indian removal act. the precedent set there is that the court has no means to enforce its rulings. the cherokees, who had won their suit vs georgia, were set packing on the trail of tears anyway. same with the creeks, who had fought with jackson at new orleans and the seminoles who fought a long guerilla war to avoid it.

 

Might as well. Right?

 

it is not what i am thinking. but perhaps you should examine how the supreme court became a player in partisan politics.

as for the guns, didn't obama take all the guns during that jade helm exercise? weren't gun owners locked in the fema camps?

 

Olbermann is insane. His hatred for America is so far outside the mainstream that even the liberal media treats him as a pariah.

 

Allahpundit is a bit of a putz, but not to the extent of Krazy Keith.

Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment "was the rock that started this avalanche. And it’s awfully close to Justice Thomas’s opinion today. This has been a long campaign of scholarship, litigation, and advocacy and it has made a difference. Ideas do matter. The Court cleared up the standard of review issue, making it plain that the Second Amendment isn’t a second-class right, and that strict scrutiny, not some kludged-up form of “intermediate scrutiny,” applies."

"The direct impact of this decision isn’t big. It will make no difference in the 43 states that have shall-issue carry now. Its immediate impact will be limited to those may-issue states that make permits available at the discretion of the authorities. Eric Adams claims this means we’ll have gun-toting thugs shooting people on the streets of New York, and engaging in running gun battles on the subways. Oh, wait, that’s what New York has now."

"The affected states will do their best to frustrate the impact of the opinion, of course — call it a campaign of “massive resistance” — which will only ensure more litigation. The lower courts have been notably unsympathetic to gun rights, most judges possessing as they do the values of the educated Gentry Class on social matters regardless of political affiliation, but this is a direct instruction from the Court to take gun rights seriously. I expect a few summary reversals of courts that try to dodge the decision’s import."

"The notion that “urban” areas should have different gun regimes than rural areas is racially suspect. In the music business, “urban” is largely a synonym for “black,” and for most people “rural” is a synonym for white. The notion that black areas should have more restrictive gun regimes than white areas is problematic. We don’t treat constitutional rights differently based on locality."

A restoration.

 

This is why I’m not on twitter…any idiot (Olbermann) can spout off nonsense and then people give him attention by retweeting his nonsense or starting threads about him on a message board.

 

republicans changed the rules, stole the SC, sorry, that loses any respect one had for the SC rullings

 

if the rules allow dems to add seats and fill them with 50 votes, dems should do it now

 

Choose the stupidest guy on the other side and make him represent everyone on that side?

Disolving the Supreme court makes about as much sense as overturning an election.

 

stealing the SC ruined the court and made it one side represented everyones side, republicans blew it

but don't have to desolve it, just add seats and steal it back

 

Republicans didn't change anything. They could have allowed Garland to have his hearing and then shoot him down which would have just wasted everyone's time. If, after shooting Garland down and a Clinton win, she could have re-nominated him. Bottom line, the Republican senate would not have confirmed Garland in 2016 so he wasn't getting in at that point anyway.

 

yes republicans it, they change the rules that a president could not decide on an election year

and they changed the votes for a sc judge pick from 60 to 50

republican stole the SC

 

True. If it doesn't agree with them, it's fundamentally evil and must be destroyed...... pretty well defines paranoid schizophrenia, doesn't it?

 

Get back to me when the DNC, or any responsible Dem, endorses the idea. Until then it's just an angry crank with a Twitter account (like Trump used to be) upset over the SC putting citizen's lives in danger.

Breyer Makes Plain The Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”
talkingpointsmemo.com
Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights[/paste:font]
Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.
talkingpointsmemo.com

What is notable is the ease with which the court's liberals shred the ludicrous, anachronistic arguments of the Right.

 

Who else besides the crackpot Olbermann wants to dissolve the Supreme Court? Any senators or congressmen?

 

Exactly. This........This is the SOP for Leftists.........strays very far indeed from the truth.