• turmacar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    SC justices don’t do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

    If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You’re right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you’re left with only the piece you posted.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      SC justices don’t do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

      They’re not fighting over bruen then. Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

      If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You’re right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you’re left with only the piece you posted.

      Nothing I’ve posted has been taken out of context. It’s very very clear what both of those letters meant.

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

        In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren’t yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

        Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren’t yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

          So you don’t, just say that. We’re not talking about the rahimi ruling. You don’t need to explain how a ruling works and yes they do still “vote” on a ruling. They don’t all just write opinions and then magically uphold or strike down a ruling…

          Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.

          No it’s not, you’re literally trying to make it something its not. You’re assessment that Jefferson was anti gun is completely incorrect.