https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ke/ar-AA1jk6Bm

I didn't put this in the Gun thread because it is not the point of my post. Rather it is to give what appears to be a very good example (unless I am missing something) of a case where the obviously right decision is the opposite of the obviously "correct" decision. Should we have a system where such cases can exist? Perhaps there should be some sort of appeals judge who can overrule the decisions that follow the law but are clearly wrong. They do that in poker rooms all the time.

If I'm understanding you and the article correctly, the decision is only 'correct' in the context of your stupid ****ing constitution and amendments that were a little better than garbage when they were written, when a government could potentially be repelled by a well-armed militia, but in modern times, when the police have massive funding and access to military grade weapons and drones and the backing of a surveillance state, that already flimsy justification should be out of the window. You can align 'right decision' with 'correct decision' (lolwat?) very easily by just admitting that the second amendment ought to have been done away with at least 1,000 mass shootings ago. Whether or not at the time, paranoia about government overreach was good justification for allowing regular citizens unfettered access to dangerous weapons, it is one of the greatest ongoing and incomprehensible travesties of justice that so many innocent children and adults die every year, including domestic abuse victims, because 'muh guns'.

I'd say 'may your country rot in hell' but it's already doing so.

What I gather from this article and current rules is that the govt should pay every woman to take gun safety classes and give everywoman a 9mm and a federally recognized CCW, plus money for ammo every month.

My post wasn't about gun laws. It was about laws that sometimes result in stupid decisions.

i like the cut of this guys jib.

And moving past that, how do you adapt to and armed population that likes to murder women

And just like you have the precept that someone accused of a crime is assumed to be innocent, someone who is acquitted of a crime by a jury is assumed to be not guilty. In both cases those assumptions are flawed because they usually are guilty. And sometimes those flawed assumptions can cause harm. The SCOTUS case is an example. A second example occurs when a woman accuses a guy of sexual assault but the evidence is not strong enough to convict. Society swallows the fact that there are a lot of acquitted people running around free who are 80% to be guilty while we don't bring that percentage up. But when the ignoring that 80% to be guilty probability refers to a crime asserted by an accuser, ignoring that 80% and pretending its 0% (because of the acquittal) stigmatizes those accusers, usually unfairly.

All these issues would go away if people were more willing to add in approximate probability estimates to their pronouncements.

The Supreme Court may rule or come close to ruling that you can't take the guns away from a man who has a domestic abuse restraining order against him because he has not yet been convicted of a crime. This in spite of the fact that 90% of the world thinks that such a ruling is ridiculous except for some lawyers and other mentally ill people who think that rules are rules even when they go against common sense. My target was laws that can result in such stupidity. Not people who like to shoot women.

Most sane people believe the solution doesn't involve even more guns.

The OP is not a great example, because, as wazz pointed out, the bad decision is a result of a bad law (in this case, an, at best, outdated constitutional amendment). Your second example is probably better.

Unfortunately, PW's particular brand of batshit insanity is prevalent among the US population.

Americanism has become a religion, your declaration of independence and constitution your sacred religious texts, the children that die in school shootings the human sacrifices.

You do understand that men kill women at a much much much higher rate than women kill me

Did you know that?


You have interviewed millions of people and used the appropriate sample sails to determine your results with 95% accuracy?

I doubt it


that men accounted for about 98 percent of all homicide perpetrators worldwide[2] and 79% of the victims (see the chart below).


Victimization rates are also better than absolute numbers at capturing women's actual risk of being killed by someone in their family. In 2020, it is estimated that out of every 100,000 women and girls worldwide, 1.2 were killed by their intimate partners or other family members.

Sane people, like westerners who pollute the planet, support police states and apartheids, while making the poor and the homeless suffer?

Yea I’ll look to them for moral advice

Could you restate Sklansky's point in your own words, and then explain how what you have written above relates to it?

My point was that if men are to be armed regardless of domestic violence status, that women should be armed as well, because men assault and kill women at a much higher rate than the inverse.


I did not realize David was arguing against the ban. It doesn’t make sense to me to argue about things that are clearly illegal. Change the 2a if you want to make gun restrictions. It’s illegal otherwise

I know that you are going to say that you are just throwing big ideas out there and that the details should be left to those who can be bothered to think about them, but the bolded doesn't seem thought through at all, even if we limit ourselves to federal courts.

First, where does this hypothetical appeals judge (or judges) sit in the judicial hierarchy? Does the judge have the power to review all court decisions or only SCOTUS decisions? If the former, then what is the difference in role between this appeals judge and existing appellate courts and which court hears appeals first? If the latter, are we doing anything besides putting another appellate court on top of the SCOTUS?

Second, as d2 alluded to, we need to distinguish cases where the court is the root cause of the objectionable decision from cases where a bad law (or bad constitution) is the root cause of the objectionable decision. In the former situation, as I said, you are just adding another appellate court into the mix. In the latter situation, you essentially are vesting a judge (or judges) with the enormous power to rewrite or ignore statutory or constitutional law in any situation where the judge thinks, in his or her independent judgment, that adhering to the law would result in a "wrong" decision. To state the obvious, a judge vested with this authority would have enormous power, far more power than any existing court has.

Third, given the enormous power that these new judges will wield, there will be enormous concern over who the judges are, and what they believe. What is the mechanism for selecting these new judges? How will this mechanism avoid all the bullshit that plagues our current process for appointing justices to the SCOTUS?

Fourth, as if often the case with your hypothetical solutions to government problems, you seem to be assuming that this new higher level judge won't function like a human being, but rather will function more like an optimal decision-making robot. Even if we put aside the biggest elephant in the room -- namely, the fact that your idea of optimal, my idea of optimal, and wazz's idea of optimal are all likely to be very different -- there is no particular reason to assume that this new judge will function in the way you imagine. In the real world, this judge is likely to be just as susceptible to error or influence as any other high-level appellate court.

The ridiculousness of your attitude to guns and gun control and your woeful reading comprehension abilities have both been on full display for some time now, so this was exactly what I suspected. Thanks for the clarification/confirmation.

Judges also work for one of the parties in many cases so they are extremely biased


That’s good man it’s 6am and I read with one eye open.


I just follow the intent that my family had when resisting the British and US govts. The resistance made sure that they could stay well armed with the ability to gather and travel. I’m sorry if you don’t understand that. Feel free to change the constitution via the ways we already have setup.

Work for one of the political parties or work for one of the parties to the litigation? They certain do not do the latter. They usually are affiliated with a political party to a greater or less degree, depending on whether the judge in question has been appointed or elected.

Props for taking the time to write all that out, which of course should have been blindingly obvious, even to Sklansky.

Whenever there is a case against the govt, the judges are ruling against the people that pay them. The govt pays judges, plain and simple.

The intent that your family had when resisting the British was also to create a judiciary that was separate from and independent to the other branches of government (pop quiz - do you know what these are?) You might want to read up on how that works before you spout off nonsense and come off as an ignorant tit, it really is fascinating stuff.

That isn't particularly relevant for judges with lifetime appointments. There are plenty of Article 3 judges who seemingly delight in ruling against the government.

but we already have gun restrictions. the whole idea is just made up.