- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
The fact that Obama nominated him is proof he is against us. Other evidence is redundant.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Garland is a centrist
Chucky Schumer says the Rs will cave again............
RINOs Ayotte, Collins, Flake to meet with Bl-Obama Commie SCOTUS nominee...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ns-say-they-will-meet-with-obama-scotus-pick/
So, I'm a relative newbie to gun ownership and the pro 2A fight. Realistically, what happens is D.C vs. Heller is over turned?
Chucky Schumer says the Rs will cave again............
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...rack-hearings-vote-obamas-supreme-court-pick/
could be timing it for when trump gets into office.I actually expected him to start a civil war by now, but he does have enough time left to start it!!
DC petitioned the appeals court for a rehearing en banc. Not surprising they would appeal a 2 to 1 decision. Garland simply voted to rehear it. Majority voted against it. DC then appealed to SCOTUS who granted cert. A rehearing en banc would be normal for a controversial case and obviously SCOTUS agreed because they took it after the appeals court passed on it.
Read the briefs and get back to us.
Again, why do you think Garland wanted the case reheard, if he agreed with the panel decision? Logic would indicated he did not agree with the panel decision. Couple that with his early position on NRA v.s. Reno, where he voted with the majority to allow the FBI to retain NICS records for 6 months, and I do not trust him on 2A. Why take the chance.
It was okay for Obama to filibuster Alito's selection to SCOTUS in 2006. Now that the tables are turned, eff him!
Speculating is not logic. I am guessing he voted to rehear the case for the same reason SCOTUS did. It involved a controversial area of constitutional law. Again, DC requested the en banc rehearing so it is reasonable to assume his vote was nothing more than providing them an opportunity to be heard which is consistent with his stated philosophy of everyone deserves to be heard.
If the Senate holds a hearing these questions will be answered and we won't have to speculate. A hearing doesn't mean they have to give consent.
Remember, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review yet never wrote a legal brief. If he is such a genius, why haven't his college transcripts ever been released?
If Heller is overturned, the 2nd is relegated to a corporate right that is held in totality by the state and federal government. That would be the end of the right to private ownership of firearms.
No, it is not reasonable to believe he simply wanted DC to be able to be heard.Speculating is not logic. I am guessing he voted to rehear the case for the same reason SCOTUS did. It involved a controversial area of constitutional law. Again, DC requested the en banc rehearing so it is reasonable to assume his vote was nothing more than providing them an opportunity to be heard which is consistent with his stated philosophy of everyone deserves to be heard.
If the Senate holds a hearing these questions will be answered and we won't have to speculate. A hearing doesn't mean they have to give consent.
Which means you admit your interpretation is no more, or less reasonable, than mine. However, my interpretation is based on his actions in the prior case, NRA v.s. Reno. Neither case is absolutely definitive, but together they suggest a leaning against 2A. Again, I am not willing to take that chance.Speculating is not logic. I am guessing ...
Yeah right. The current convention of dodging any but the most nebulous questions, practiced by nominees with the tact approval of the Senate, makes the hearings effectively useless.If the Senate holds a hearing these questions will be answered and we won't have to speculate. A hearing doesn't mean they have to give consent.
Which means you admit your interpretation is no more, or less reasonable, than mine. However, my interpretation is based on his actions in the prior case, NRA v.s. Reno. Neither case is absolutely definitive, but together they suggest a leaning against 2A. Again, I am not willing to take that chance.
Yeah right. The current convention of dodging any but the most nebulous questions, practiced by nominees with the tact approval of the Senate, makes the hearings effectively useless.
Based on what you currently know, do you support Galand's nomination? Why, or why not?
In response:NES you're failing me on this one. I usually rely on your collective internet wisdom to form my opinion. Am I supposed to dislike this guy or what?
Here's what I gathered so far:
- Obama picked him so it can't be good.
- He voted to rehear the Heller (or similar?) case.
- The above possibly indicates he's anti-gun.
- Or it indicates that he wanted the supreme court to weigh in on the issue.
If he gets a hearing, I predict he'll answer yes to the first question. I cannot remember a recent appointee who has said otherwise. It would be suicide to answer any other way.The other issue in this thread "would he vote to overturn Heller" is a big question. I suppose his potential actions and thoughts on the issue could be broken down into:
- Heller is precedent / settled law" / "stare decisis" or whatever it's called. It's very rare for the SC to overturn a recent precedent. Is he the kind of guy who respects that, or is he an activist judge?
- Heller could be boxed in. Would he look at the "in the home" precedent as the limits of RKBA? This is the real danger and open question, in my opinion, that the "bear arms" part of 2A would be restricted to the home.
I assume we'll find answers to the first question, but I doubt we'll get a clear idea on the second one.
As I explained to a liberal friend, SCOTUS justices who aren't originalists or strict constitutionalists are pretty useless as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches. If they aren't willing to apply the Constitution, the entire difficulty of the amendment process is pointlessTranslated: that means there's a good chance of him being an RKBA hating douchebag. He might even be a decent judge otherwise but for this position anyone that isn't firmly in support of the constitution is unacceptable. I don't even care much about how they vote outside of that, but having jurists who waffle on the bill of rights is unacceptable.
-Mike
And just in- repubs may cave if dem's win in November
http://news.yahoo.com/key-republicans-open-handling-garland-nomination-u-election-144222541.html
As I explained to a liberal friend, SCOTUS justices who aren't originalists or strict constitutionalists are pretty useless as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches. If they aren't willing to apply the Constitution, the entire difficulty of the amendment process is pointless
Browncoat used the term "constitutionalist", not "constructionalist". The terms have different meanings and are not synonymous:So it is your opinion that putting Scalia on the bench was a mistake?
"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be" Antonin Scalia, 1998
You are equating originalism to strict constructionalism. The two are not the same. As I have read and understand it strict constructionalism would often (always?) prevent extrapolation of the Constitution to legal topics on which it is explicitly silent, but originalism does allow extrapolation to other topics based on the original meaning of the text.As an originalist you believe schools should never have been desegregated because there is nothing in the constitution regarding that. You must believe there is no right to free speech on the internet because the internet didn't exist. Obviously the government has no right to search your iPhone because that didn't exist. You are against minimum wage laws and child labor laws as the constitution is silent on those matters.
If someone is charged with a crime it is your theory that they should not have a lawyer unless they can afford one. Nothing in the constitution about the right to a lawyer if you're poor. If the police illegally break into your house you believe they should be allowed to use in court whatever they find. Can't find anything in the constitution about suppressing evidence. Why should the police say you have right to remain silent. Where exactly does the constitution confer that right?
The term originalist or strict constitutionalist is simply another term for Sharia Law and McConnell et al want to appoint Mullah's to the Court because there is no need for Justices. Hard to believe US Senators won't even meet Chief Justice Garland because he is not carrying a copy of the Quran under his arm. Senate becomes more dysfunctional by the day. Whatever happened to public Yes/No votes?
This. Couldn't have said it better. If anything, I would have been happy for Scalia to go further. The purpose of the Constitution is to define and limit government. Scalia sided against things like the need to read Miranda rights when I think he should have upheld them as a consistent limit on government coercion.Browncoat used the term "constitutionalist", not "constructionalist". The terms have different meanings and are not synonymous:
Constitutionalist: an advocate of constitutional government
Strict Constructionist: one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States
Scalia was an originalist and strict constitutionalist, but as you quote, he was not a strict constructionalist.
You are equating originalism to strict constructionalism. The two are not the same. As I have read and understand it strict constructionalism would often (always?) prevent extrapolation of the Constitution to legal topics on which it is explicitly silent, but originalism does allow extrapolation to other topics based on the original meaning of the text.