The question I have is this case is this someone accused of domestic violence or convicted of domestic violence. Also is there not a case or were Hunter Biden's team looking at appealing to the supreme court that restricting firearms to illegal drug usage is unconstitutional as well

Our judiciary is corrupt and is paid by the fed govt anyway

Not for long.

If you're going to make sweeping infantile generalisations like this, what do you hope to gain by participating in a politics forum?

Almost all laws, good and bad, are susceptible to angle shooters, smart criminals, accountants and lawyers finding ways to use them to do bad stuff. If you think it's too complicated to ferret out these cases via new judges just let all appeals court judges invoke the Sklansky exception, if appropriate, when making their decision. (I realize that many do it already without admitting it.)


Note: I wasn't being arrogant. I was thinking of my cousin David Alan Sklansky , big time law professor at Stanford, who just sent me a reply to my email.

"Great to hear from you, Cousin! Hope you're doing well. I don't really have mixed feelings about Rahimi. I think the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment is very hard to defend. If you had told me when I was in law school that one day the Supreme Court would conclude that the Constitution should be interpreted to allow only the kinds of gun regulations that were in place in 1791 ... well, I don't know what I would have thought. It's just such a crazy way to interpret the Constitution. And it's contributing to the high rates of lethal violence in the United States. So I really hope the government prevails in Rahimi."

Really? Wow, that's pretty impressive. Surprised you haven't mentioned him before.

Member(s) of the Supreme Court are corrupt.

Do you deny this?

Corrupt as in breaking the law? Because than No . Corrupt as in that they take free trips, money .... than yes but so is most of government

This is the claim you made:

"Our judiciary is corrupt and is paid by the fed govt anyway".

If you'd like to support this claim by a). giving examples of corruption of Supreme Court judges b). showing this affected their rulings, please go ahead. You're the one stating the claim, so it's on you to provide the evidence and the rationale for the claim.

So you’re agreeing our judiciary is corrupt

@d2

Clarence Thomas got gifts from people associated with cases.
Taking the gifts means you’re corrupt. Not mentioning them
On your tax forms is also illegal and corrupt. Your definition isn’t the one we use here.

So did RBG is she corrupt?

I'll stipulate to your facts. You're using this argument to claim that the US does not have a judiciary that is independent of other branches of government, have I understood this correctly?

It's funny how issues that you believe are so crystal clear that they are beyond argument seem to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Yes

I don’t know. But I don’t see it as completely independent. If a bunch of judges issued rulings like let’s say, oh I dunno, that natives got their land back or slave descendants were properly compensated for their families work, I think the govt would step in and fire those guys.

If judges ruled that presidents like Clinton or trump could go to jail for Epstein then I’d say no they aren’t corrupt. But we saw what happens when the Executive branch gets caught with its pants down(literally); they use the judiciary to eliminate the problem

How could that have happened if they were independent?

Because you think the corrupt courts are going to remove all the current restrictions?

Just cause a court is corrupt doesn’t mean every ruling is bad. Being corrupt 1% of the time is still corrupt.

Time for a quick civics lesson. People not being robots, it's hard to design a judicial system where bias and corruption doesn't creep in in insidious ways. However, part of the reason that appellate and supreme court judges have lifetime appointments is exactly to make them immune from retaliation from the executive branch should they issue unfavourable rulings against them.

What ruling(s) are you referring to where judges said that Clinton or Trump couldn't "go to jail for Epstein", whatever that means?

We seem to have gone from this:

To this:

So which is it? Are they corrupt 100% of the time or 1% of the time? Try and use your words and state a claim which is lucid, non-self contradictory, and relevant to this thread.

My cousin sent me a second email. Here is the full exchange. Is there really anyone who desn't think he would make a better president than any of those presently running?



David Alan Sklansky

From:
sklansky@stanford.edu
To:
dsklansky@aol.com

Mon, Nov 6 at 11:02 AM

I think what's at issue in the case is whether the Constitution allows the government to make it a crime for someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order to possess a gun. To get a restraining order, you need more than just an accusation, although less than a criminal conviction. So I don't think it's right to say that Rahimi was penalized just based on an accusation. He was placed under a restraining order because a judge concluded that he had committed acts of domestic violence and was likely to do so again. Then he was prosecuted for violating one of the terms of the restraining order, which prohibited him from possessing a gun.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:54 AM dsklansky@aol.com <dsklansky@aol.com> wrote:
II am doing well. Hope you are too. The reason I thought you might have mixed emotions was that the person is being penalized in a way that implies he has been convicted rather than just accused. But maybe the law allows that in certain cases already in which case my thinking that you would have a problem with that was wrong. In any case my thought about your stance wasn't really related to your stance on specifically gun laws.

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 09:31:35 AM PST, David Alan Sklansky <sklansky@stanford.edu> wrote:


Great to hear from you, Cousin! Hope you're doing well. I don't really have mixed feelings about Rahimi. I think the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment is very hard to defend. If you had told me when I was in law school that one day the Supreme Court would conclude that the Constitution should be interpreted to allow only the kinds of gun regulations that were in place in 1791 ... well, I don't know what I would have thought. It's just such a crazy way to interpret the Constitution. And it's contributing to the high rates of lethal violence in the United States. So I really hope the government prevails in Rahimi.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:05 AM dsklansky@aol.com <dsklansky@aol.com> wrote:
Thinking you may have mixed emotions.

Lol.

that's the intent, but it really just gives them a free pass to be as corrupt as they would like with no oversight.

i would think it's clear to see that the lifetime appointments have become a mistake. there's no substantial difference between a lifetime appointment and a Single term limit in terms of outside influence. but now we have all the justices dying in office because the grift is too good to leave.

Clinton and Epstein were both clients of Epstein and of maxwell.

Neither faced any legal repercussions.

You stated:

Which judicial rulings, corrupt or otherwise, protected them from facing legal repercussions?

The usa constiution is a bit too modern to decide this stuff. What we really need to be analysing is what moses & co thought about it.

As to the 'big issue'; I'm against. Precident, elected government changing laws and juries is the way to go

No idea. Why weren’t they prosecuted then?

So you have no idea, yet you know it's because the judiciary is corrupt? Hint: judges don't have any say in who gets indicted or otherwise charged with crimes.

Basically, you're completely ignorant to how any of this works, yet you make sweeping grandstanding statements like you know the subject matter inside out.