double standard? (USA thread)

[GepperRankins]

Is it a double standard to complain if a judge looks to other nations when making a "moral ruling" then wish to use foreign convictions against someone?
The Bush administration is wishing to ban gun ownership to those with convictions outside the USA and Justice Antonin Scalia who last week said that foreign courts have no place in US law is backing the idea.

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

[vidcc]

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

the thread is about double standards, not common sense.

[Mr JP Fugley]

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

Is that any wet floor, or a subset of wet floors.

The Supreme Court has decided that other Courts are not able to judge on whether a floor is wet or not. So they choose to let their people slip on a good American floor, rather than trust anyone else.

Madness, complete madness.

[Busyman]

Then you entirely miss the crux. Your law states "any Court", your Supreme Court argued what "any" means and has decided that it does not include foreign Courts, judges from your Supreme Court have pointed out that is ludicrous.

The laughable matter is that the Supreme Court cannot even decide what a word (which quite frankly is not open to any ambiguity) means.

Well I say fuck the "any" shit because their job is to interpret law and not make it.

From what I understand, the reason the fella was able to purchase a gun here was because there was no law stating he couldn't.

Now if our esteemed lawmakers decide to give, for instance, a gun possession in the UK more credence then so be it.

I don't see the double standard reference that vid points to because they are not apples-to-apples comparisons.

One refers to influences on judges when interpreting law and the other refers to legislative action.

This guy's case is an issue to be taken up by our legislative branch. The judicial branch made the correct decision. If they had ruled against him, it would have only gone against the constitution seeing that any other current law did not prohibit his gun ownership.

Put a reciprocity law on the books and then work from there. Otherwise, for the purposes here, he has broken no law.

[JPaul]

Well I say fuck the "any" shit because their job is to interpret law and not make it.

From what I understand, the reason the fella was able to purchase a gun here was because there was no law stating he couldn't.

That's the point, your lawmakers were not clear. Why would they be, where is their expertise in drafting legislation. Getting the most votes hardly makes one an expert in the field. They said "any Court" and someone obviously contended that this was "any Court in the USA".

The Supreme Court then had to make a judgement on what "any" actually meant, in the context of this piece of legislation. That is their job, to interpret not only the words of the lawmakers, but their intent. They agreed, on a majority, that it was "any Court in the USA". I suspect that was not the intention of your lawmakers, for the simple reason that it does not best protect your citizens, which seems to be the point

The interpretation of the law (as written) is at least as important as it's making. The making of the laws is all good and well, however it only effects real people when it is interpreted by your judges and ultimately ruled on by your Supreme Court.

[GepperRankins]

i really don't think we should be saying this "double standard" is bad.

[Busyman]

That's the point, your lawmakers were not clear. Why would they be, where is their expertise in drafting legislation. Getting the most votes hardly makes one an expert in the field. They said "any Court" and someone obviously contended that this was "any Court in the USA".

The Supreme Court then had to make a judgement on what "any" actually meant, in the context of this piece of legislation. That is their job, to interpret not only the words of the lawmakers, but their intent. They agreed, on a majority, that it was "any Court in the USA". I suspect that was not the intention of your lawmakers, for the simple reason that it does not best protect your citizens, which seems to be the point

The interpretation of the law (as written) is at least as important as it's making. The making of the laws is all good and well, however it only effects real people when it is interpreted by your judges and ultimately ruled on by your Supreme Court.

I know what the purpose of the judicial branch is.

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.

[JPaul]

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.

It's not about an "International Court" (if such exists), or a Court in North Korea.

It's about the fact that your lawmakers said "any Court" and your Supreme Court has now decided that "any Court" meant "any Court in the USA". Tho' the dissenters questioned the basis for this decision.

The rest of the world does not give a flying fuck that you have now decided that a conviction outside of the USA does not preclude a person from buying and carrying a firearm in your country.

It's an internal, USA matter. Should you recognise wet floors elsewhere or not. The Supreme Court has decided not to. I do not believe that was the intention of the lawmakers or that it is in the best interests of your citizens.

[vidcc]

i really don't think we should be saying this "double standard" is bad.

Their end opinion on this I agree with in that any should mean any.

But if the double standard came the other way round, these people shouting that we must count outside convictions domestically...then...the the same people show outrage over a judge looking at outside courts when making a ruling here as they did when a ruling was made that we shouldn't execute minors.These people wish to "reel in" the judges because of it.

I am for the judge looking outside our shores and I am against the ruling that outside convictions shouldn't count...... I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

[Busyman]

It's not about an "International Court" (if such exists), or a Court in North Korea.

It's about the fact that your lawmakers said "any Court" and your Supreme Court has now decided that "any Court" meant "any Court in the USA". Tho' the dissenters questioned the basis for this decision.

The rest of the world does not give a flying fuck that you have now decided that a conviction outside of the USA does not preclude a person from buying and carrying a firearm in your country.

It's an internal, USA matter. Should you recognise wet floors elsewhere or not. The Supreme Court has decided not to. I do not believe that was the intention of the lawmakers or that it is in the best interests of your citizens.

It's internal...for real? You're kidding?

We should not recognize wet floors in all cases. If the Supreme Court cock-blocked the intention of lawmakers so be it (if that's what happened). I think it was just, in this case. Now the lawmakers can tweak their wording.