NO RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE?: Will law punish victim of violent crime?

[lollilolli2020]

 

 

@CanadianMalodu @kevinUsa whats happening in TrudeauLand

[CanadianMalodu]

25 minutes ago, lollilolli2020 said:

 

 

@CanadianMalodu @kevinUsa whats happening in TrudeauLand

That's the reality. That's what they are planning to do in US as well. Which is why Trump Tatha is much needed. 

[Joker_007]

India lo inthakanna darunam ga undi law . if someone is trying to kill you you need to run away from him , call the cops and tell them you are being killed and wait for them to show up .. if they do not come on time then you can confront him.. 

[Pavanonline]

4 hours ago, CanadianMalodu said:

That's the reality. That's what they are planning to do in US as well. Which is why Trump Tatha is much needed. 

Trump gadu em chestadu, he has no power over police in states

[CanadianMalodu]

6 minutes ago, Pavanonline said:

Trump gadu em chestadu, he has no power over police in states

Right to bear arms is what keeps US still in good shape. If that's taken away then it's way worse.

[Pavanonline]

Just now, CanadianMalodu said:

Right to bear arms is what keeps US still in good shape. If that's taken away then it's way worse.

adi kuda federal chethilo ledu

[CanadianMalodu]

18 minutes ago, Pavanonline said:

adi kuda federal chethilo ledu

Then you don't know how US governance systems work. POTUS has the power to VETO congress. He can nominate judges to SCOTUS who can uphold his view when the case comes to them.

[Pavanonline]

2 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

Then you don't know how US governance systems work. POTUS has the power to VETO congress. He can't nominate judges to SCOTUS who can uphold his view when the case comes to them.

clearly you don't know US constitution, no one can veto it. And no, SCOTUS doesn't work on whims of a president. He can appoint judges only in case of vacancy and even then can't control judgements.

[CanadianMalodu]

45 minutes ago, Pavanonline said:

clearly you don't know US constitution, no one can veto it. And no, SCOTUS doesn't work on whims of a president. He can appoint judges only in case of vacancy and even then can't control judgements.

What are you talking about? Where did I say president can veto US constitution? I said Congress. If Congress were to pass any bill that strips or waters down the second amendment, then POTUS can VETO it. It's a power bestowed by the US constitution to the POTUS. POTUS nominates judges when there is a vacancy then those judges reciprocate the favour, that's called loyalty. That's how it works everywhere. If you have sitting judges that are against the POTUS, then judgements wont come in his favour in cases of constitutional matters.

[lollilolli2020]

14 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

What are you talking about? Where did I say president can veto US constitution? I said Congress. If Congress were to pass any bill that strips or waters down the second amendment, then POTUS can VETO it. It's a power bestowed by the US constitution to the POTUS. POTUS nominates judges when there is a vacancy that the judges reciprocate the favour, that's called loyalty. That's how it works everywhere. If you have sitting judges that are against the POTUS, then judgements wont come in his favour in cases of constitutional matters.

do you think its easy ?? 

that's what @Pavanonline trying to convey. 

[Pavanonline]

11 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

What are you talking about? Where did I say president can veto US constitution? I said Congress. If Congress were to pass any bill that strips or waters down the second amendment, then POTUS can VETO it. It's a power bestowed by the US constitution to the POTUS. POTUS nominates judges when there is a vacancy that the judges reciprocate the favour, that's called loyalty. That's how it works everywhere. If you have sitting judges that are against the POTUS, then judgements wont come in his favour in cases of constitutional matters.

Congress can't pass bills against constitution, that's the whole point of having constitution. Anyway congress is divided enough to pass any bills on issues like guns, abortion, immigration. Biden 4 years unnadu without such legislation and next 4 years will be same. Judges have a philosophy on how rulings are made not loyalty. You see judges taking other side all the time.

[CanadianMalodu]

10 minutes ago, lollilolli2020 said:

do you think its easy ?? 

that's what @Pavanonline trying to convey. 

If President has enough public support , and the action of Congress can do it.

 

9 minutes ago, Pavanonline said:

Congress can't pass bills against constitution, that's the whole point of having constitution. Anyway congress is divided enough to pass any bills on issues like guns, abortion, immigration. Biden 4 years unnadu without such legislation and next 4 years will be same. Judges have a philosophy on how rulings are made not loyalty. You see judges taking other side all the time.

Can't pass is a stretch. Constitution can be amended. To that effect, they are bestowed with that power. They are balanced by the POTUS and SCOTUS. Either of them can shoot it down. Judges taking stance in favour or against the POTUS is based those that appointed them and what views they hold. Some times they even abstain from even hearing the case.  What specific cases are you referring to when you say judges are taking other side ?

[Pavanonline]

11 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

If President has enough public support , and the action of Congress can do it.

 

Can't pass is a stretch. Constitution can be amended. To that effect, they are bestowed with that power. They are balanced by the POTUS and SCOTUS. Either of them can shoot it down. Judges taking stance in favour or against the POTUS is based those that appointed them and what views they hold. Some times they even abstain from even hearing the case.  What specific cases are you referring to when you say judges are taking other side ?

Amendments are whole different thing that need 2/3rd of congress vote and 34th states to ratify which is impossible to get in current climate. And president can't do anything about it because 2/3rd is veto proof.

Many judgements happen where justices take side of other party. If you are asking specifically about appointee president you can look into election fraud cases which were rejected by Trump appointed judges. 

[CanadianMalodu]

19 hours ago, Pavanonline said:

Amendments are whole different thing that need 2/3rd of congress vote and 34th states to ratify which is impossible to get in current climate. And president can't do anything about it because 2/3rd is veto proof.

Many judgements happen where justices take side of other party. If you are asking specifically about appointee president you can look into election fraud cases which were rejected by Trump appointed judges. 

That's a conventional view held by the Supreme Court as well. The true nature of it can only be tested with time. If President veto's it then a veto override requires 2/3 majority as well. So although it may appear moot, it still leaves a room for 'if' scenarios. With right judges on your side, I don't see why that can not be stopped by litigating it. 

That part is true, but collectively they don't have the numbers to come to his corner and as far as I recall Trump only nominated three judges in a total of nine. Exposing that cover up means accepting election fraud that's happening for decades in the US and officially accepting the roles of CIA and it's masters.

But I agree guns part probably won't go till that extent, but may be restricted to introduce bills in an attempt to water down second amendment, without a constitutional amendment. Such cases can be vetoed and by right judges playing your side they can be struck down if an attempt to override Veto happens. 

 

 

[Pavanonline]

3 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

That's a conventional view held by the Supreme Court as well. The true nature of it can only be tested with time. If President veto's it then a veto override requires 2/3 majority as well. So although it may appear moot, it still leaves a room for 'if' scenarios. With right judges on your side, I don't see why that can not be stopped by litigating it. 

That part is true, but collectively they don't have the numbers to come to his corner and as far as I recall Trump only nominated three judges in a total of nine. Exposing that cover up means accepting election fraud that's happening for decades in the US and officially accepting the roles of CIA and it's masters.

But I agree guns part probably won't go till that extent, but may be restricted to introduce bills in an attempt to water down second amendment, without a constitutional amendment. Such cases can be vetoed and by right judges playing your side they can be struck down if an attempt to override Veto happens. 

 

 

bhayya you are reading too much into judges, ACB and Kavanaugh are the ones that rejected the cases in their purview. they'll vote ideologically like they did in Roe v Wade not by president.