View Single Post
  #1623  
Old 09-02-2021, 8:31 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,426
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And are intelligent enough to pick the right damn meaning for the purpose.
The only reason to deliberately use "bestow" instead of "affirm" is if you are worried judges might feel "affirm" is too emasculating and/or threatening to the courts' authority and sense of self importance.

They certainly generally seem they not only interpret the Bill of Rights, but quite literally mete it out in limited quantities to the people as if they were doing a grand favor, and owe us nothing.

See also jury nullification.

There are some things judges hate to be called out on. One of them is to suggest that they are subject to something other than their own unilateral authority.

No, it is safer to pretend that we all agree that all rights are granted (akin more to a privilege that one has to grovel for) by judges, at their sole discretion, and nobody else.

We see this attitude in everything judges in the 9th do with regards to the 2A.

So yes, it is best to bow meekly before them, and ask "please, grant me my rights, but only if you see fit to". You are not allowed to ever demand anything from a court. Certainly telling them that they're only there to affirm a *preexisting* right, not created by the courts, is an insult and will doom your case.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 09-02-2021 at 8:33 PM..
Reply With Quote