![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/guns-r-welcome.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThat law was designed to basically end the right to carry a gun to protect yourself in Hawaii. When it was passed, it was challenged in court and eventually ended up in front of the State Supreme Court. They issued a ruling so utterly unconstitutional that some were saying that these judges were trying to declare Hawaii independent.<\/p>\n
With that ruling, at least one barking moonbat on the State supreme Court went off the deep end, declaring that they would not follow the instructions of the United States Supreme Court. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n A Hawaii Supreme Court<\/a> justice used a ruling overturning a decades-old criminal conviction to deliver a blistering rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court, accusing the nation’s highest court of weakening constitutional rights, damaging democracy and advancing a political agenda.<\/b><\/p>\n Justice Todd Eddins authored the 91-page majority opinion<\/a> Wednesday in State v. Granillo, a case involving a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman on Maui.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n What\u2019s interesting is that the case he was ruling on had absolutely nothing to do with any supreme court decision, and probably wouldn\u2019t even make it into the Federal court system.<\/p>\n The court ordered a new trial after concluding that hair and fiber evidence presented by an FBI expert relied on forensic science that has since been discredited.<\/b><\/p>\n Which makes sense. That type of evidence was found to be bad quite some time ago when the FBI lab was called onto the carpet. Basically, nothing to see here.<\/p>\n But in roughly eight pages of the opinion, Eddins argued Hawaii’s courts should not look to the Roberts court when interpreting the state constitution, using the case to deliver an unusually sharp critique of the nation’s highest court.<\/b><\/p>\n “When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line,” Eddins wrote, referring to the court’s six conservative justices. “That is not defiance. That is the design.”<\/b><\/p>\n No actually, they aren\u2019t. The Federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, are meant to protect the United States Constitution, not the state constitutions. It appears that this jackass didn\u2019t get that memo.<\/p>\n Eddins argued that Hawaii’s Constitution<\/a> provides stronger protections than the federal Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and said the court has abandoned landmark civil rights principles.<\/b><\/p>\n It may do so. I haven\u2019t read it so I can\u2019t comment. However, the ruling that triggered this buffoons tirade was in regards to the Hawaiian State Supreme Court actively restricting the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment rights of the people of Hawaii, or have you forgotten that bit about the \u201cAloha Spirit\u201d trumping the United States Constitution that you clowns claimed.<\/p>\n “The Court that now defines federal due process does not honor the work of 1954,” Eddins wrote. “It revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896.”<\/b><\/p>\n Eddins was referring to Brown v. Board of Education, ruled in 1954, which ended racial segregation in public schools, and Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous 1857 decision denying citizenship to Black Americans and Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that upheld racial segregation.<\/b><\/p>\n Eddins argued that the Roberts court no longer reflects the constitutional principles established in Brown v. Board of Education. Instead, he argued the court’s originalist approach relies on the same type of constitutional interpretation in the discredited Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.<\/b><\/p>\n Obviously, this idiot is one of those \u201cLiving Constitution\u201d morons who basically think that the Constitution doesn\u2019t actually say what was written in it. The Dredd Scott decision was rendered moot by this thing called the Civil War, (And the 13th<\/sup> and 14th<\/sup> Amendments), and Plessy was wrong on it\u2019s face. It violated the equal protections clause in the 14th<\/sup> Amendment. The Brown decision corrected that error by, wait for it, reading the constitution and the 14th<\/sup> Amendment!<\/p>\n “Today\u2019s hubristic originalists use the same method to control modern life,” Eddins wrote.<\/b><\/p>\n Yes, they are and for the first time in decades.<\/p>\n “The Court overrides what Congress passed,” Eddins continued. “It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends. What this Court has done to constitutional rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law explains why Hawai?i\u2019s Constitution takes no instruction from it.”<\/b><\/p>\n And this is why the United States Constitution overrides State constitutions in some cases. As this idiot said, a state constitution can increase rights to some extent, but they cannot take rights away from people that are guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This is what the State of Hawaii and the State Supreme Court did regarding the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment. (In fact, pretty much all of the Democrat controlled states or stripping rights away from the people in favor of the State)<\/p>\n Eddins accused the Roberts court of adopting a “colorblind” approach to the equal protection clause that, in his view, ignores the amendment’s original purpose of protecting formerly enslaved Black Americans.<\/b><\/p>\n “The Roberts Court sees only white,” he wrote. “It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect.”<\/b><\/p>\n So this slimy scumbucket is also a racist too. Frankly, this doesn\u2019t surprise me at all.<\/p>\n He also suggested that recent Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly expanded the power of government officials and wealthy interests while reducing protections for individual rights<\/a>.<\/b><\/p>\n “A court that systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity<\/a> does not chart the course for the Hawai?i Constitution,” he wrote.<\/b><\/p>\n It sounds like this loser is indulging in the Progressive pastime of \u201cProjecting.\u201d Eddins rant didn\u2019t go unnoticed by people who are..sane.<\/p>\n The opinion quickly drew criticism from legal observers who said it was highly unusual for a state supreme court opinion to devote so much space to criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/b><\/p>\n “The Court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan wrote<\/a> on X. “I haven’t ever seen something like this. And it’s not good.”<\/b><\/p>\n No it isn\u2019t and it will have to be dealt with. How, I don\u2019t know. This is something that the State of Hawaii\u2019s legislature would need to handle, and considering that they\u2019re generally to the left of Pol Pot, I don\u2019t\u2019 see them doing anything.<\/p>\n The opinion comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed Hawaii a major loss in Wolford<\/a> v. Lopez, striking down the state’s so-called “vampire rule.” In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled Hawaii could not require gun owners to get a property owner’s permission before carrying a gun into businesses and other private property open to the public.<\/b><\/p>\n That was the case where the Hawaiian Supreme Court, as mentioned earlier, rejected the Bruen decision, citing a new legal doctrine<\/a>, the \u201cAloha Spirit.\u201d The 9th<\/sup> Circus, of course, upheld this laughable doctrine because, why not? They never met a gun control law they didn\u2019t uphold.<\/p>\n Now it remains to be seen if the Hawaiian Supreme Court is just blowing smoke, or if they fully intend to flat out ignore the United States Supreme Court. The last time that this happened, as I understand it, was the Brown decision and that ended up with Federal troops being sent in. I don\u2019t see that happening, but I can see other things being done. The first thing would be to tell the State Legislature to deal with their court. If they don\u2019t? I don\u2019t see it ending well for the State of Hawaii.<\/p>\n Right now, I think the best recourse is to belittle, insult and make fun of Justice Todd Eddins. Do not do anything unlawful, just exercise your 1st<\/sup> Amendment rights to inform and educate the people on what a spoiled, narcissistic jerk with delusions of competence he actually is. I hope the people of Hawaii get on the phone and blow out the eardrums of their legislators demanding that this idiot be removed from the court\u2026.Politely of course.<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good day all. Recently, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling declaring Hawaii\u2019s so called \u201cVampire\u201d law unconstitutional. This basically said that unless a property owner, even one that is publicly accessible such as a gas station, gave their … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n (3<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n