PDA

View Full Version : Is the Machete robbery of Breyer likely to affect SCOTUS decisions?


OleCuss
02-13-2012, 12:44 PM
http://tinyurl.com/86fjy65

Breyer robbed by machete-wielding person in his West Indies home.

I'm wondering if there is a significant chance this will change the way one or more SCOTUS members view the RKBA.

Tarn_Helm
02-13-2012, 12:50 PM
http://tinyurl.com/86fjy65

Breyer robbed by machete-wielding person in his West Indies home.

I'm wondering if there is a significant chance this will change the way one or more SCOTUS members view the RKBA.

"Change?"

That is an ambiguous term.

In all likelihood, it will change for the worse.

He is the kind of person who will focus on the machete and not the wielder of the machete.

He will likely become a greater advocate of "weapon control" of ALL kinds, including machetes: knife control, walking stick control, clenched fist control, etc.

Some people simply become more entrenched in their errors when confronted by realities which contradict their assumptions.

Just because he is a SCOTUS judge does not mean he is immune to all the cognitive weaknesses of us ignorant mere mortals.

Breyer will become more anti-2nd-amendment than ever.

That's my prophecy.

:cool:

taperxz
02-13-2012, 12:53 PM
Ehh.. Perhaps and advocate of in the home only. His thinking would be have a gun in the house but outside the house no one can have guns because they will bring them into others houses. He will want to stop that.

Tarn_Helm
02-13-2012, 1:04 PM
Ehh.. Perhaps and advocate of in the home only. His thinking would be have a gun in the house but outside the house no one can have guns because they will bring them into others houses. He will want to stop that.

You really think so?

FNS Stephen Breyer
6ytKl6enGlI

FNS Stephen Breyer Part 2 Al98htH3xWs

Breyer is pretty hostile to the second amendment.

He thinks "the state militia" should bear arms.

Not the rest of us unregulated and/or poorly "regulated" slobs.

In other words, Breyer focuses on the word "regulated" when interpreting the second amendment.
:facepalm:

Bigtime1
02-13-2012, 1:10 PM
The only people that need machetes are the members of a machete militia. Duh. :D

nicki
02-13-2012, 1:17 PM
Perhaps this is the universe telling Justice Breye that he is ot above being a crime victim.
There is an old saying, a conservative is a liberal who was mugged last night.

I don't expect him to change on the 2nd amendment, but perhaps it may shake up Sotomayor or Kagan a bit.

Nicki

Knight_Who_Says_Ni
02-13-2012, 1:20 PM
You really think so?

Justice Breyer on 2nd Amendment: If You Live in DC & Like Shooting Guns You Can Go to Maryland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWxRnK751MM)

QWxRnK751MM

:cool:

He really comes off as an arrogant jerk in that video...

ed bernay
02-13-2012, 1:28 PM
comeuppance for Breyer. I hope he realizes that he is only alive because of the mercy of the home invader. I wonder how that makes him feel.

pdq_wizzard
02-13-2012, 1:38 PM
:eek::ack2::facepalm:

jdberger
02-13-2012, 1:43 PM
Let's try not to celebrate the fact that he was the victim of a crime. Frankly, it's gauche.

It's also beneath us as a community.

Armed robbery is pretty traumatic to the victim. Kicking the victim when he's down and vulnerable is vile.

Finally, we know that lots of people read this forum, including Supreme Court Justices. Powerful people also tend to Google their names and have standing Google Alerts for their names. Why on earth would we want to throw stones at them?

Maestro Pistolero
02-13-2012, 1:47 PM
"Are you a sportsman, do you like to shoot pistol at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland."

Presumable to shoot a gun you don't and couldn't own and couldn't legally transport on the subway. What an ignoramus. He's an intellectually dishonest person and a disgrace to the court.

Tarn_Helm
02-13-2012, 1:47 PM
He really comes off as an arrogant jerk in that video...

His arrogance was even more blatant in the longer video clips I used to replace the one I originally posted.
:facepalm:

But I am glad you reposted the one I originally put up.

The guy is an arse clown.

Statists/"Progressives" are intellectually dishonest.

They know there is no authority in the Constitution for them to regulate our LTC/CCW rights, full-auto rights, or any other gun rights.

They just lie and write perverse rulings, knowing that their position then shifts the burden of proof onto us.

Meanwhile, their "opinions" are backed up for decades by the coercive power of federal, state, county, and municipal governments.

That is why the Statists/"Progressives" can sit in front of the camera and smile and say eff you, my opinion is now law--have fun with that, losers!

:mad:

A lot of people on this forum are familiar with the intellectual fraud perpetrated by Michael Bellesiles, which can be read about here http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html and here: http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-more-bellesiles.html

But folks here need to read about the judicial anarchy which ensued after United States v. Miller:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Brian L. Frye. "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller" NYU Journal of Law & Liberty 3.1 (2008): 48-82.Available at: http://works.bepress.com/brian_frye/1

And it is first really noted here, on page 188 of Stephen Halbrook's brilliant book, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html).

On page 188 (chapter 7), we are shown that the First Circuit Court of Appeals did an analysis of United States v. Miller in 1942 and decided that the ruling in the Miller case was "outdated" because if the Miller ruling is correct, then the Second Amendment is "absolute," and no arms-bearing is not susceptible to any degree of regulation or infringement--therefore, the Miller ruling should not be adhered to.

Essentially, a lower court was overruling the Supreme Court.

Read it for yourself.

It makes your head spin.

Activist judges creating judicial anarchy.

Nothing new.

:mad:

Curley Red
02-13-2012, 2:02 PM
Machete don't text!

Connor P Price
02-13-2012, 2:13 PM
Let's try not to celebrate the fact that he was the victim of a crime. Frankly, it's gauche.

It's also beneath us as a community.

Armed robbery is pretty traumatic to the victim. Kicking the victim when he's down and vulnerable is vile.

Finally, we know that lots of people read this forum, including Supreme Court Justices. Powerful people also tend to Google their names and have standing Google Alerts for their names. Why on earth would we want to throw stones at them?

Amen to this! Even while I disagree with Breyer on a lot, he's certainly not deserving of being victimized.

As to the question of whether this will have any impact on SCOTUS decisions for us in the future, I don't believe it will at all. Breyer dissented in Heller and McDonald and was already likely to continue to rule against us on future issues before the court. Will this make him more anti? Maybe, but who cares? He's just one out of nine, and this wont change the way he'll rule.

The only thing that would matter to us is if this situation caused Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, or Alito to all of the sudden sway from the pro-rights majority to the anti-rights side and lose us our majority. I'd be shocked if this situation would cause any of them to change their opinion so its a non-issue in my eyes.

Full Clip
02-13-2012, 2:16 PM
Respect RKBA? Ha!
Regulate machetes!
Oh, and increase Federal aid to the West Indies...

G60
02-13-2012, 2:20 PM
I would hope so, but I doubt it.

"The last time a justice was the victim of a crime was in 2004, when a group of young men assaulted Justice David Souter as he jogged on a city street. Souter suffered minor injuries.
In 1996, a man snatched Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's purse while she was out walking with her husband and daughter near their home in Washington."

Guess how Souter and Ginsburg ruled on Heller.

Tarn_Helm
02-13-2012, 2:31 PM
Let's try not to celebrate the fact that he was the victim of a crime. Frankly, it's gauche.

It's also beneath us as a community.

Armed robbery is pretty traumatic to the victim. Kicking the victim when he's down and vulnerable is vile.

Finally, we know that lots of people read this forum, including Supreme Court Justices. Powerful people also tend to Google their names and have standing Google Alerts for their names. Why on earth would we want to throw stones at them?

Breyer would disarm us all, as if he were some sort of medieval feudal lord disarming his villains.

And you expect us to feel sorry for his troubles?

Um.

Let me think about that for one second.

Done.

No.

He should have been armed and vigilant.

He got what his philosophy created for him: victimhood.

He should have used some foresight to prevent the problem.

Instead, he got what he wanted and what he believes the U.S. Constitution mandates for us: helplessness in the face of a predator.

That is the closest thing to "justice" I have heard of in a very long time.

_FUyu3csPq0

Breyer wants me to be helpless too, and I'm supposed to be all dripping with sympathy for his self-inflicted helplessness?

That's insane.

He needs to rethink his philosophy of arms bearing.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/HAPPINESSISAWARMGUN.png

"Gauche?"

So what.

:mad:

His willingness to disarm us all is quite a bit worse than "gauche."
:facepalm:

meaty-btz
02-13-2012, 2:33 PM
All I will say is this: Those who disarm others and leave them to the mercy of cruel men should themselves be a victim at some point as it is Just for them to suffer what they have caused by direct action others to suffer. For from the vantage of power and protection, lofty calls are made that cause direct harm. Those who make the call should suffer the same harm they cause to others. That is Justice and a reminder to those in lofty places to whom protection is always available and exemptions given that they, even without malice, may cause harm and to consider that God Is Just and what that might mean for them. With power comes responsibility, if by your power you cause another to come to harm then you are directly responsible for that harm. As much as the one who did the harming because you enabled the one who caused the harm and shackled the one who was harmed to be a served as a victim to the perpetrator.

OleCuss
02-13-2012, 2:34 PM
Let's try not to celebrate the fact that he was the victim of a crime. Frankly, it's gauche.

It's also beneath us as a community.
.
.
.

I hope my starting the thread is not viewed in this way.

I would never wish ill upon Breyer or celebrate his trauma.

I sincerely wonder if this will affect the RKBA views of the SCOTUS and if so, how?

It is much like the potential relevance of Kagan going shooting. It may or may not make a difference - and if it does make a difference I'm not sure how the difference will evidence itself.

The problem that I see with the thread is that I suspect there simply isn't an answer.

I suspect Breyer will maintain the same stance WRT RKBA. But it is possible that he will decide that having a firearm with you means you can defend yourself? Or he may decide that large knives must also be outlawed?

I don't know.

But more interesting to me is the possible dynamics among the other members of the court.

Is it possible that Kagan could become more friendly to the RKBA - or less friendly?

Could Kennedy become less pro-RKBA civil rights? I really doubt that.

It may be that we will never know. It may be that SCOTUS will be just a tad more likely to allow regulatory schemes which they would not otherwise countenance. Or the right to self-defense wherever you are might become more important to them.

The more I think about it, the less impact I think it will have. I'm going to guess that each faction will simply consider it as reinforcing their previously held position.

nicki
02-13-2012, 2:42 PM
We have some allies here near DC. Perhaps we should make an offer to the judge to arm him so that he could protect his family. We should also extend the same offer to the rest of the court also, after all, no one should have to wait until after they have been a victim to be able to protect themselves.

Justice Breyer will probably refuse our offer, doesn't matter, we will have the moral high ground.

Who knows, we might luck out and get one of the women justices to flip to our side.

Nicki

Barbarossa
02-13-2012, 2:43 PM
Where is the +rep button?

Let's try not to celebrate the fact that he was the victim of a crime. Frankly, it's gauche.

It's also beneath us as a community.

Armed robbery is pretty traumatic to the victim. Kicking the victim when he's down and vulnerable is vile.

Finally, we know that lots of people read this forum, including Supreme Court Justices. Powerful people also tend to Google their names and have standing Google Alerts for their names. Why on earth would we want to throw stones at them?

DannyInSoCal
02-13-2012, 2:46 PM
We should be thankful he wasnt killed.

Soros's presidential puppet wouldve replaced him with someone even more ignorant and delusional -

If that's even possible...

Tarn_Helm
02-13-2012, 2:55 PM
I hope my starting the thread is not viewed in this way.

I would never wish ill upon Breyer or celebrate his trauma.

I sincerely wonder if this will affect the RKBA views of the SCOTUS and if so, how?

It is much like the potential relevance of Kagan going shooting. It may or may not make a difference - and if it does make a difference I'm not sure how the difference will evidence itself.

The problem that I see with the thread is that I suspect there simply isn't an answer.

I suspect Breyer will maintain the same stance WRT RKBA. But it is possible that he will decide that having a firearm with you means you can defend yourself? Or he may decide that large knives must also be outlawed?

I don't know.

But more interesting to me is the possible dynamics among the other members of the court.

Is it possible that Kagan could become more friendly to the RKBA - or less friendly?

Could Kennedy become less pro-RKBA civil rights? I really doubt that.

It may be that we will never know. It may be that SCOTUS will be just a tad more likely to allow regulatory schemes which they would not otherwise countenance. Or the right to self-defense wherever you are might become more important to them.

The more I think about it, the less impact I think it will have. I'm going to guess that each faction will simply consider it as reinforcing their previously held position.

And I don't wish him ill.

My point is merely that he creates his own ills.

Unfortunately he wishes me and millions of others ill through his wish--unfulfilled as of yet--to disarm us all if he could.

I don't have to wish him ill.

Does ill to himself by insisting on being helpless in the face of predators who rob him while armed with machetes.

Do I feel sorry for him?

Hell no.

I wish he would learn from the concrete application of his theories to reality.

Namely, the theories that 1] citizens have no right to arms and 2] that citizens should be content to seek protection from the government.

But he won't learn.

Too proud to admit he's wrong.

He equates his power and the coercive power of The State with truth.

And I am glad he is alive and well.

Could have gotten replaced with a bigger and worse anti-2nd-Amendment a__hole.
:facepalm:

nick
02-13-2012, 2:58 PM
Let's try not to celebrate the fact that he was the victim of a crime. Frankly, it's gauche.

It's also beneath us as a community.

Armed robbery is pretty traumatic to the victim. Kicking the victim when he's down and vulnerable is vile.

Finally, we know that lots of people read this forum, including Supreme Court Justices. Powerful people also tend to Google their names and have standing Google Alerts for their names. Why on earth would we want to throw stones at them?

I don't know. I normally agree with your opinions, but in such cases, I would agree that tactically and strategically you're right, but morally, I'm not so sure. It's one thing to kick the victim of a crime when he's down (that is vile, true), it's a whole other story when the person in question becomes the victim of the very crimes he enables.

Those Russians who ended up in GULAG prior to 1937 were perfectly justified to cheer when the very people who created the GULAG system and put them in there began appearing in GULAG as inmates during the purges of late 1930's.

As for judge Breyer, he should learn karate or something...

philobeddoe
02-13-2012, 3:01 PM
comeuppance for Breyer. I hope he realizes that he is only alive because of the mercy of the home invader. I wonder how that makes him feel.

elite, superior, and fair

Maestro Pistolero
02-13-2012, 3:07 PM
Sidebar: Don't vacationing SC justices get secret service protection? WTF?

Wherryj
02-13-2012, 3:09 PM
You really think so?

FNS Stephen Breyer
6ytKl6enGlI

FNS Stephen Breyer Part 2 Al98htH3xWs

Breyer is pretty hostile to the second amendment.

He thinks "the state militia" should bear arms.

Not the rest of us unregulated and/or poorly "regulated" slobs.

In other words, Breyer focuses on the word "regulated" when interpreting the second amendment.
:facepalm:

I love how supposedly educated professionals such as Justice Breyer can continue to cling to things like "regulated milita" as a reason to limit a Constitutional right. They keep discussing it as in the MODERN day version of "militia" (which is also 100% reserved for the government), when that concept didn't come about until long AFTER the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

That's like arguing the GPS clause in the BoR. It is intellectual dishonesty. It is merely a way for them to hold their own bias and explain it away somehow. A Supreme Court Justice is not supposed to bring "personal experience" to the bench. The SC Justice is supposed to bring a knowledge of the Constitution, and apply that as a law-not a personal wish list.

Wherryj
02-13-2012, 3:10 PM
Sidebar: Don't vacationing SC justices get secret service protection? WTF?

Apparently they get the "B Team" from the SS? That or we have a new sig: "When seconds count, the secret service is only minutes away."

Wherryj
02-13-2012, 3:14 PM
I don't know. I normally agree with your opinions, but in such cases, I would agree that tactically and strategically you're right, but morally, I'm not so sure. It's one thing to kick the victim of a crime when he's down (that is vile, true), it's a whole other story when the person in question becomes the victim of the very crimes he enables.

Those Russians who ended up in GULAG prior to 1937 were perfectly justified to cheer when the very people who created the GULAG system and put them in there began appearing in GULAG as inmates during the purges of late 1930's.

As for judge Breyer, he should learn karate or something...

I once received a black belt in Shorinji. My sensei suggested that I never try to fight an armed assailant while I myself was unarmed. It was considered an act of desperation and poor preparation.

When lives are at stake, the entire idea is to not allow the other guy a fair chance. Intentionally putting yourself at a disadvantage ignores every known rule of warfare.

I know where the saying comes from, however. It is someone else who misunderstands the concept.

Maestro Pistolero
02-13-2012, 3:15 PM
On reflection, I believe he will portray this anecdotal story as empirical evidence that one needn't be armed to survive a criminal attack.

nick
02-13-2012, 3:30 PM
I once received a black belt in Shorinji. My sensei suggested that I never try to fight an armed assailant while I myself was unarmed. It was considered an act of desperation and poor preparation.

When lives are at stake, the entire idea is to not allow the other guy a fair chance. Intentionally putting yourself at a disadvantage ignores every known rule of warfare.

I know where the saying comes from, however. It is someone else who misunderstands the concept.

I was being sarcastic, as that's something antis suggest as an alternative to having a gun, when pressed to acknowledge that some means of self-defense are necessary. Of course, then there's this little logical fallacy of deliberately limiting your options, if self-defense is needed.

chuckdc
02-13-2012, 3:50 PM
Sidebar: Don't vacationing SC justices get secret service protection? WTF?

Federal judges are protected by the U.S. Marshals.

InGrAM
02-13-2012, 3:59 PM
On reflection, I believe he will portray this anecdotal story as empirical evidence that one needn't be armed to survive a criminal attack.

^ this x1000

"people of lesser economic status than you (criminals) don't want to hurt you, they just want your money." ....... Some BS like that.

Tarn_Helm
02-13-2012, 4:22 PM
Federal judges are protected by the U.S. Marshals.

Federal judges are protected by the U.S. Marshals--sort of!
:rofl2:

ed bernay
02-13-2012, 4:26 PM
Let's try not to celebrate the fact that he was the victim of a crime. Frankly, it's gauche.

It's also beneath us as a community.

Armed robbery is pretty traumatic to the victim. Kicking the victim when he's down and vulnerable is vile.

Finally, we know that lots of people read this forum, including Supreme Court Justices. Powerful people also tend to Google their names and have standing Google Alerts for their names. Why on earth would we want to throw stones at them?

I don't think anyone here is celebrating or would wish a home invasion on anyone including Breyer. I am actually glad he is ok. However I certainly don't feel sorry for a man who said that Americans don't have the right to defend ourselves using firearms. If we ever lose the Heller 5, I have no doubt that Breyer and his ilk would have no problem with armed government goons depriving Americans of their 2nd amendment rights and who would use force including killing them if they resisted. He finally experienced the helplessness of not being armed and being at the mercy of someone violent. While I don't expect him to change his views, maybe he will understand the other side of his view a little better now.

uyoga
02-13-2012, 4:37 PM
This gave him the opportunity to feel he fear the residents of DC felt before Heller.

Maybe he'll go back and rewrie his dissent. . . . . Not!

glbtrottr
02-13-2012, 5:00 PM
I am giddy that he's OK. The idea of him being replaced by "a woman" whose experience would have her know better while being thirty years his junior would undoubtedly be a travesty.

I don't wish him harm.

I do find it to be unabashedly ridiculous that none other than the man who wrote his special dissent on a Supreme Court case, likely to be on the books for decades if not longer, has been handed an opinion by a bad guy.

The sad part is that libtards are simply not rational; as others have mentioned, he will use his experience to be even more anti-gun, considering that there are not enough laws in the Island where he was robbed to keep him safe. His arrogance and ego will be engaged, and likely result in an even more fervent appreciation of his fearful anti-gun stance. Breyer isn't man, he's mouse, and will never change his stripes.

We can only pray that a conservative or libertarian president will replace him with a good, rightgeous American judge, gender notwithstanding.

dantodd
02-13-2012, 11:13 PM
Guys, Justice Nruer wasn't even in the U.S. when he was attacked. No matter what or how he voted it would not have permitted him to carry or possess a firearm in the West Indies.

I am rather disgusted that some here would wish such violence on anyone.

sholling
02-13-2012, 11:32 PM
Amen to this! Even while I disagree with Breyer on a lot, he's certainly not deserving of being victimized.
I agree with this completely - I feel bad for him and his family and hope they are safe now. Of course I feel just as bad for every one of the thousands of women that have been raped and the men and women that have lost their lives because Breyer's ilk denied them the means to defend themselves.

scarville
02-14-2012, 6:23 AM
All I see coming out of this is Breyer deciding that elites like him need more and better protection. As for the little people? They'll get to pay for it.

yellowfin
02-14-2012, 7:12 AM
If SCOTUS members read this forum as is speculated, to four of them I say this:

"Il n'y a pas de politique qui vaille en dehors des réalités."

Not my words, but from someone they might listen to since they insist on sourcing wisdom from elsewhere.

ubet
02-14-2012, 7:45 AM
He is an arrogant ahole. Im glad he is ok, but he is not smart enough to realize the error in his way, it will be that their arent enough laws regulating machetes.

scarville
02-14-2012, 7:57 AM
He is an arrogant ahole. Im glad he is ok, but he is not smart enough to realize the error in his way, it will be that their arent enough laws regulating machetes.
I suspect he is smart enough to realize the error. He is also smart enough to rationalize it away.

yellowfin
02-14-2012, 8:03 AM
It's not so much that he wants to rationalize it away but rather he would subordinate it as an acceptable cost in the overall picture of his greater goal of establishing dominant, all providing all powerful government to which individual self defense, self sufficiency and other individual rights is a fundamental obstacle.

While I do not particularly wish him harm I honestly and sincerely do wish him personal consequences, the lack of which has produced his ideology and actions.

IVC
02-14-2012, 9:35 AM
From the "collectivism" point of view, Breyer is not a victim since the society as a whole was not harmed.

We should celebrate Breyer's handling of the situation the same way they do in the "Armed Citizen": In spite of the adverse situation, Breyer was able to execute his preferred defense tactics (submission) to the full extent. This is a complete success no different than the success of those who chase away a would be robber by using a firearm.

I don't see a victim here. Certainly not kicking anyone while they are down. When one succeeds in one's preferred way of protecting oneself, I call that a happy day. Breyer should feel great about how he handled the situation according to his own beliefs.

On the other hand, if Breyer doesn't like actually being a peon in the collectivism game, well...

randian
02-14-2012, 4:28 PM
I love how supposedly educated professionals such as Justice Breyer can continue to cling to things like "regulated milita" as a reason to limit a Constitutional right.
Especially when knowledge of grade-school English would tell you that the militia clause isn't a limiting clause.

randian
02-14-2012, 4:32 PM
Guys, Justice Nruer wasn't even in the U.S. when he was attacked. No matter what or how he voted it would not have permitted him to carry or possess a firearm in the West Indies.
That didn't stop Bloomberg from taking his armed bodyguards in contravention of the law of the island where he was staying. Different rules for the governing class.

Tarn_Helm
02-14-2012, 4:37 PM
That didn't stop Bloomberg from taking his armed bodyguards in contravention of the law of the island where he was staying. Different rules for the governing class.

True.

He is still an intellectually dishonest a__hole.

otteray
02-14-2012, 5:36 PM
I'm glad that he was unharmed.
However, I do hope that someone poses this question to him. While having that rusty, dirty, poorly sharpened two foot long, cold steel blade pressed against his throat by a nervously sweating, angry and impatient rich tourist hating bandit, did he just possibly wish that the means of stopping the threat of his own death was immediately available?
I'd guess yes.

vincewarde
02-14-2012, 6:15 PM
1) I am glad he is OK.

2) The experience could hardly make him more hostile to the 2nd Amendment

3) It MAY cause him to re-evaluate his position. My guess in the minutes when he did not know if he and those he loved would live or die, he wanted a weapon.

4) I hope he remains on the court until someone who actually believes in the constitution can be appointed by a different president.

5) My guess is that in the future he will have security that the rest of us could never afford.

We should never assume that SCOTUS justices would never change their minds. I think that this experience, as well as the revolutions in Libya and Syria so the value of the 2nd Amendment protection even in the 21st Century. He could change his mind - but I am not holding my breath.