Archive

Archive for February, 2013

Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement, Scaaaaallliiiiaaaaaaaa (Scalia)!

The politicization of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has been evident for some time now, but we are now seeing decisions that demonstrate an amazingly racist, intellectually devoid, and judicially baseless rationales for judicial decisions. Judge (loosely used) Scalia is the embodiment of cancerous judicial activism that does not seek to interpret the constitutionality of laws, it appears that he only seeks to mode law into his warped political worldview.

The new approach to judicial decisions by this SCOTUS is extremely disturbing and warrants the public to be very leery of its decisions and logical leaps. The case of Shelby County v. Holder, which is about whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. This is the case that has shined an ugly light on the thinking (or lack thereof) of Scalia!

Scalia has crossed the line from just being a Supreme Court judge that only made very poor judgments into the realm of racial intolerance or just all out racism with his latest remarks. In the current case before the Supreme Court, Scalia referred to act of continuing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. A beautifully ugly and racist reference to an act that merely ensures the protection of minorities from discriminatory voting practices by certain states; which was predominately displayed in the election of 2012. His gigantically inappropriate reference to the right to vote as an “entitlement” only demonstrates his ignorance as to what an entitlement is and the stated purpose of the act itself.

Scalia’s rationale for opposition of the act is laced with stupidity and just all out preemptive assertions/justifications that have no base in fact and should not be exhibited by a member of the Supreme Court. Scalia rants by saying “initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it”. He then trolls on about how every-time they reenacted the law there was some measure of opposition to its re-adoption.

Scalia’s logic leap continues as he states that in the last re-enactment of the law there was a unanimous vote to extend the act and this is his rationale for calling the act of reenacting this provision of the law “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. His baseless and fatuous assertion is that the mere fact that the law was passed unanimously is evidence that the act should come into question.

Actually Scalia said it worst with this gem of moronic rationalizing “And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Under this warped logic, the fact that Scalia was confirmed to the bench by unanimous vote by Congress should put into question his nomination; which makes as much sense as what he stated. Scalia must have forgotten this fact before he made his statement. Read more…

Uber-Second Amendment Clarification: Argument One/Two/Three!

2ndA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Is the Second Amendment hard to understand? Can those who support unregulated gun rights and/or an armed citizenry for the purpose of fighting the United States government be right that the Founding Fathers feared the possibility that this American government (the government in which they created with checks and balances) would become tyrannical and the only way to preserve freedom from our government is to have an armed citizenry?

Can those that want gun regulations be correct in stating that it was a means to establish a militia approach to the need for defense of the US instead of a peacetime army? Let’s take a peak at this to get an understanding or not! Can they both be wrong in their assertions? Can the true history of the arguments that lead to the writing of the Second Amendment be found?

Americans and pundits have been twisting themselves into pretzels in order to pull their pre-determined definition out of the Second Amendment text. There are a myriad of sites that will purport that this well-crafted amendment clearly states that Americans should have unfettered rights to gun ownership; and they would be wrong. The syntax itself clearly establishes a condition to this particular amendment and the rights it grants. With this assertion, what are arguments for or against unfettered gun rights?

The Second Amendment, of the Bill of Rights, is indeed a well-crafted sentence. By that, I mean its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors’ meaning “In order to establish a well regulated militia, for the defense and security of a free state, the rights to of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed”. The meaning is clear when a sensible person reads the Second Amendment on its face and even more clarity is obtained via a reading of the arguments behind its adoption. A look at the arguments of those that support the idea that the Second Amendment is about an unfettered personal  right to own and bear arms is in order to point out the fallacy within. Read more…

Rethink gun laws, NOW!

ar-151

AR 15 is not needed by John Q. Public

The carnage and incomprehensible violence that happened in Connecticut shocked the nation and brought the topic of gun control to the nation’s attention. The correlation between the senseless slaughter of those beautiful elementary kids and guns are a natural response by all that have a moral foundation in peace and love. In reflection of the tragedy, the collective WE all demanded that “assault weapons” be banned and called for the re-institution of the loophole riddled assault weapons ban.

The CT shootings led to everyone shouting from the rooftops about the need to regulate or even outlaw certain “assault weapons” as a cure to the evil that happened at Sandy Hook. The event actually left me quite numb and to be honest, I am still quite numb in many ways about that inhuman mass shooting. With that being said, I dare to say that no matter how tragic that shooting is the reality is that it has very little to do with just gun ownership. It has to do with a lack of gun regulations in terms of nozzle velocity, firing capacity  and gun insurance.

I assert that the proponents of gun laws are taking the wrong stance. The arguable connection between the horrible event at Sandy Hook and “assault weapons” only feeds the argument of those on the gun-side that contend that “the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. The connection between guns and the horrific mass shooting is as contaminating as the belief that “the answer to gun violence is more guns”; both are wrong-headed.

The two opposing positions are equally poisoning the topic of gun regulations by posturing, hyperbole, division, and political demagoguery. Appealing to the other sides sense of good morality on the subject of guns will only harden their stance in opposition of yours.  The problem lies in the fact that we naturally oppose that which we do not already agree with and this is a matter of human nature.

As Stanford University psychologist Leon stated A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted right to guns. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted gun rights. One can relate this to the theory of “fight or fleet”; this holds true with predators and data. Relating mass shootings to the need for gun control weakens the argument somewhat. America needs to look at gun regulation/control at the level of what is at the bare minimum level of responsibility that all gun owners should accept. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: