A 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister in Florida after a family argument over Christmas presents, officials said Tuesday.

The teen had been out shopping on Christmas Eve with Abrielle Baldwin, his 23-year-old sister, as well as his mother, 15-year-old brother and sister’s children, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said during a news conference.

The teenage brothers got into an argument about who was getting more Christmas presents.

“They had this family spat about who was getting what and what money was being spent on who, and they were having this big thing going on in this store,” Gualtieri said.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes, I’m pointing out that the Supreme Court now has defined what the founders meant then. :) They are the arbiters of what the founders meant after all.

    There’s a TON of history they go through in Heller, and McDonald and the recent ruling from New York, Bruen.

    All worth reading if you have the time.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/

    Bruen is the one with most of their historical reasoning because it’s the one that requires a historical precedent for gun laws, which is a new twist.

    • candybrie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      They aren’t arbiters of what the founders meant. They’re arbiters of how we currently interpret the constitution. Originalism is only one possible way to interpret it.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Like I said, they’re arbiters of how we currently interpret the constitution. Originalism is only one possible way to interpret it. There are philosophies like strict textualism where they only look at the plain text and bring no extra context. Or the living constitution philosophy where they apply current day context.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        And it was upheld 2 years later in McDonald vs. City of Chicago:

        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/

        I’m not asking anyone to LIKE the rulings, I just want people to understand what they’re talking about.

        Unfortunately if you take people point by point through Heller, McDonald, Caetano (my personal favorite), and Bruen, their eyes glaze over and they never read it.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        We all need to care what they meant so long as we continue living under their system and that’s not changing any time soon.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          And under this system they can make up anything they want! That’s what you need to understand - there are no rules. They can make up anything.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            The Supreme Court can and will do that, which is why it’s important to be cognizant of who is on the court and who potentially will age out next.

            Just based on age, Thomas and Alito will be next to go, which is why it’s important to have a Democratic President in '24 and '28. They will both likely be replaced by '32.

            The next three are Roberts, who is slightly more sane than the others on the right, Sotomayor and Kagan.

            So reversing the conservative trend is contingent on Democrats holding the office of the President probably until '40? Then hoping there isn’t a McConnell style dickbag move that blocked Merrick Garland.

            If Trump is elected, you can expect Thomas and Alito to step down so younger conservative justices can dominate the court for the next 30-40 years.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Trump will file a lawsuit if he loses and the Court is going to rule in favor of him 5/4 anyway. 🙄

              Even if that doesn’t happen, the conservative “trend” is baked into the institution. It was designed to be conservative, to act as a check against democratic forces. It literally can’t be anything but conservative. At best we can keep the Court from becoming more fascist, but that’s it. We can only play triage with the Court - for the country to heal it must be abolished.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                It can be, we just need more Democratic presidents nominating justices.

                In my lifetime there have been 8 Republican Presidential terms to 6 Democratic terms, which doesn’t sound SUPER imbalanced.

                But in that same time, Republican Presidents nominated 15 justices to the court and Democrats only 5. Should have been 14:6 if the Garland seat hadn’t been stolen. 13:7 if Ginsburg had stepped down when she had the chance.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  In my lifetime half the presidents lost the popular vote and then went on to appoint Justices, so you might understand why I have zero faith in this institution.