Bloomberg Anti-Gun Supreme Court Justices

1 Like

Democrats are soooooo pro Constitution. How could anyone vote against them? Seriously!:crazy_face::crazy_face::crazy_face::crazy_face::crazy_face:


Remember to not let them get you to lower your standards of communication, @Michael7. :smiley:

I’m currently reading the articles and going down a rabbit hole looking at the data.

There is a lot of political grandstanding going on with statistics being used to argue different views and as Mark Twain said:

Facts are stubborn things but statistics are pliable.


It is very difficult when you discuss the makeup of SCOTUS. The big differences are those considered originalists and constitutional conservatives, who interpret the constitution based upon what the founding fathers meant when it was written, versus those who interpret the constitution liberally and believe that it should be interpreted in light of the current day circumstances. I believe in an originalist interpretation.


Well said mike. I chose to not be an ostrich when it comes to politics. Both sides have very different agendas m.


That is what I believe the SCOTUS and all other federal judges should be.


“Originalist Interpretation” Bingo.

1 Like

I am not sure Bloomberg campaign has a message. Perhaps he is trying to develop one, and gain traction with the left-leaning electorate. I dont see him taxing his own money 101%, nor pandering to climate/political radicals. He is wasting his time with this, and his SCOTUS agenda will remain on paper.

1 Like


Bloombergs message is simple. He wants to be a dictator. Look at his past. It’s a NYC thing. Cuomo is the same way (I live under his dictatorship). They don’t really care about the constitution, just how they want the state/Country to run their way.

1 Like

In order for the Constitution to have any reliable meaning at all it must be understood through the lens of original-ism. To view it any other way is to destroy the very protections it was intended to guarantee.

To over-simplify, on first reading the Constitution appears to be a fairly straight-forward listing of rights belonging to the people and restrictions placed on the government. Seems easy, right? But if that’s all it is then there would be little reason to debate interpretive styles or subsequent meanings.

I believe that the Constitution was written and intended to be a statement of principle, the expression of a philosophy which elevated the status of the individual to the point of being the sole source of authority which empowers government. It also puts forth the idea that the value of government lies in its service to the people and its subordination to their will.

In order to further these ideas the Founders crafted a document through the meticulous and deliberate choice of words and phrasing in order to preserve the concepts embedded in the text. They intended it to speak across generations, to withstand the temporary shifts of culture and mores which arise from time to time, and to always be the bedrock foundation of all governance.

Personal liberty, self-determination, the freedom to choose one’s actions and to reap the rewards, or bear the consequences, for the results of those actions are the ideas that power us as individuals and as a nation. They apply to every person, in every season, in every house and neighborhood and city and state. They apply to rich and poor, young and old, native and immigrant. liberal and conservative. They apply wholly and equally to every individual or they don’t mean anything at all.

The only way to read and interpret the constitution is to understand what the Founders understood it to mean when they wrote it


That’s why it is so important for some to trash the use of proper English, and to develop PC newspeak to replace it, better yet, a multitude of newspeaks (think the Tower of Babel)