- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Ketanji Brown Jackson Cites the Black Codes as Constitutional in Gun Control Case
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:42 am
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:42 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Replying to @JCNSeverino
Ketanji Jackson appears to argue that because an unconstitutional law was for a time on the books that it can be used as precedent? Am I grasping this correctly, because that’s just loony.
7
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Richard F Miller.
@NoFollo92476663
·
Follow
Replying to @JCNSeverino
CW historian here. At first I didn’t believe you. Then I listened. The Black Codes Constitutional? And argued from the standpoint of “the history and traditions of the country?” If Jackson had sat on the Nuremberg court, Herman Goering might have been found innocent.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
What was KBJ trying to do?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:49 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
What was KBJ trying to do?
Race bait, as usual.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:51 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
What was KBJ trying to do?
We talked about this yesterday a bit.
There's a USSC case Bruen that created a test that involves a historical analysis. Wiki article
quote:
Because public carry is a constitutional right, Thomas ruled out use of the two-part test to evaluate state gun laws, which generally involved application of intermediate scrutiny, that many lower courts had used, and instead evaluated New York's law under a more-stringent test of whether the proper-cause requirement is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation
What she is doing is trying to do is, basically, use an absurd example that is part of our history, to attack this analysis of Bruen.
My post from yesterday
quote:
Her problem is that she tries to be to sly when attacking concepts she doesn't like, and she's not quite smart enough to make it work. Like with the "I'm not a biologist" response at her confirmation hearings. What she's doing is trying to attack Bruen by bringing up something controversial to show why that part of Bruen is bad (to her). She just can't complete the argument at all and it comes off really bad.
quote:
This is where I disagree. I think she knows they were unconstitutional and that is the angle she's using to attack that prong of Bruen.
She just can't fully conceptualize/communicate the argument, only the attempted gotcha.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
at's a more retarded take than what KBJ was trying to do
For a "conservative" you sure go easy on the brain-dead lefties. You know, it just seems a little 'strange" that a conservative would do that.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:57 am to Jbird
quote:
If Jackson had sat on the Nuremberg court, Herman Goering might have been found innocent.
And SFP would argue why him being innocent is correct.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:58 am to KCT
quote:
For a "conservative" you sure go easy on the brain-dead lefties. You know, it just seems a little 'strange" that a conservative would do that.
Somehow you posted something dumber than the content more retarded than KBJ. That takes work.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:58 am to KCT
quote:
For a "conservative" you sure go easy on the brain-dead lefties. You know, it just seems a little 'strange" that a conservative would do that.
He’s not. He voted for Kerry, a Prohibitionist and Kanye.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:58 am to dgnx6
quote:
And SFP would argue why him being innocent is correct.
wut
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:01 am to Jbird
Is there any possible way to remove this unintelligent, dimwit off of the Supreme Court?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Somehow you posted something dumber than the content more retarded than KBJ. That takes work.
Nah, I was merely pointing out how intrinsically dishonest you are regarding your true colors. You know, like how you tried to minimize the Minnesota fraud situation only a few days before Tampon Timmy dropped out of his reelection campaign.
Did you ever figure out what that should've told you?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:10 am to Jbird
Can Justice Thomas gather up all the members of the Supremes and have a meeting with this chick and tell her that she has to resign and she is no longer welcome at the job any longer.
Then over the next weekend turn her office into a office supply/ mop closet and block off her parking space with barricades and orange construction cones.
She has to go .
Then over the next weekend turn her office into a office supply/ mop closet and block off her parking space with barricades and orange construction cones.
She has to go .
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:19 am to Jbird
How much do yall want to bet she has refused to make coffee or be on the breakfast committee for the meetings and now some low level staffer does it, thus breaking a long standing tradition?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:35 am to SlowFlowPro
I understand the Bruen ruling and its fallout.
But can you explain like I’m 5 what she’s trying to do?
Right now I’m at “she’s using the black codes being deemed constitutional at one point to say the 1911 law that we need justification to conceal carry is still relevant.”
I’m busy at work but trying to understand what she’s trying to do here and why the summary in the OP is dumber than she is.
But can you explain like I’m 5 what she’s trying to do?
Right now I’m at “she’s using the black codes being deemed constitutional at one point to say the 1911 law that we need justification to conceal carry is still relevant.”
I’m busy at work but trying to understand what she’s trying to do here and why the summary in the OP is dumber than she is.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 8:41 am
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
Whatcha got for me?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
historical tradition of firearm regulation
For what it's worth we don't have a historical tradition of firearm regulation in the US. That's a new development.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:09 am to TheBoo
by far the dumbest democrat ever to serve on the court
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:12 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
But can you explain like I’m 5 what she’s trying to do?
I did, superficially, in the post yesterday (that I quoted above)
quote:
Right now I’m at “she’s using the black codes being deemed constitutional at one point to say the 1911 law that we need justification to conceal carry is still relevant.”
No. She's trying to argue that in a purely historical analysis, we have to give weight to Unconstitutional laws while enacted and prior to being labeled unconstitutional, to argue why that absurd outcome is why we shouldn't be using the historical analysis at all.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Ahh
No. She's trying to argue that in a purely historical analysis, we have to give weight to Unconstitutional laws while enacted and prior to being labeled unconstitutional, to argue why that absurd outcome is why we shouldn't be using the historical analysis at all.
What is she then using that declaration for? Say everyone concedes her point. What’s she then applying it to in this case?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News