And Here We Go:Obama Nominates Gun-Hater to SCOTUS

TFred · Mar 16, 2016

Let's hope if the GOP EVER had a backbone, it is now.

TFred

(Article was published just prior to the official announcement, thus the future tense of the title.)

REPORT: Obama set to nominate staunch anti-gun judge, Merrick Garland, to SCOTUS

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights”

In other words, you can bet that Garland will side with efforts to overturn Heller at the earliest possible moment - effectively gutting the 2nd Amendment.

MAC702 · Mar 16, 2016

Instead of playing politics and refusing or delaying the proceedings, what we really need is a GOP with the guts to get into the proceedings and do what they FAILED to do with Sotomayor and Kagan, refuse to uphold the nomination after exposing their clear bias and disqualification for the job, and sticking to their principles.

Instead, we will get a big show about delaying the proceedings, and then they will quietly confirm the nomination after figuring out what to bargain for.

TFred · Mar 16, 2016

I remember reading something about this a while back, which lead me to find this article below.

I hope the NRA will fully grasp the importance of this issue. It is tragic that the very existence of the Second Amendment finds itself this close to the brink of destruction.

TFred

How the NRA Learned to Play Hardball on Supreme Court Nominations

DrMark · Mar 16, 2016

TFred said:
I hope the NRA will fully grasp the importance of this issue. It is tragic that the very existence of the Second Amendment finds itself this close to the brink of destruction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ick-faces-conservative-heat-on-gun-votes.html

Grapeshot · Mar 16, 2016

Not only NO, but Hell NO. My/our rights are not for sale or trade.

Do not fold, bend, or spindle them. Hear me loud and clear.

skidmark · Mar 16, 2016

Had they any backbone, there would be senate confirmation hearings with a vote of Y:10 N:190

stay safe.

davidmcbeth · Mar 17, 2016

Grapeshot said:
Not only NO, but Hell NO. My/our rights are not for sale or trade.

Do not fold, bend, or spindle them. Hear me loud and clear.

They already sold your rights already Grape ... sorry

skidmark · Mar 17, 2016

gutshot said:
That's a lot of votes for the two Senators from each of the 50 states, skidmark.

Chicago style, my friend.

stay safe.

Grapeshot · Mar 17, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
They already sold your rights already Grape ... sorry

That bridge was never for sale. One might prevent someone from transversing it, but the right will still remain.....always.

user · Mar 17, 2016

The problem is the establishment party. Nowadays, the word, "party" is used to refer to organizational affiliation, but politicians join whatever organization they think will get them elected where they want to run for office. But the "establishment Republicans" as the news media likes to call them are not conservatives at all - they are system-guys, and federal imperialists, just like their counterparts in the "Democratic" party. This candidate is a system-guy; he's characterized as a slightly-to-the-left of "liberal", but he's no more "liberal" than Rubio's a "conservative". The system-guys are pro-system, don't believe in the rights of individuals, and think that the necessity of state security outweighs what they see as outdated historical artifacts such as the Constitution. This candidate is not one to see that the Bill of Rights gets full implementation, and that's my bottom line for whether a candidate is any good.

JoeSparky · Mar 17, 2016

gutshot said:
That's a lot of votes for the two Senators from each of the 50 states, skidmark.

Well, it does include a location we call Chicago---- where the dead have been voting for decades! So are the Illinois senators doing the same thing?:shocker:

color of law · Mar 17, 2016

user said:
The problem is the establishment party. Nowadays, the word, "party" is used to refer to organizational affiliation, but politicians join whatever organization they think will get them elected where they want to run for office. But the "establishment Republicans" as the news media likes to call them are not conservatives at all - they are system-guys, and federal imperialists, just like their counterparts in the "Democratic" party. This candidate is a system-guy; he's characterized as a slightly-to-the-left of "liberal", but he's no more "liberal" than Rubio's a "conservative". The system-guys are pro-system, don't believe in the rights of individuals, and think that the necessity of state security outweighs what they see as outdated historical artifacts such as the Constitution. This candidate is not one to see that the Bill of Rights gets full implementation, and that's my bottom line for whether a candidate is any good.

I think many people know this, but believe you can't fight city hall.

Politicians (most being attorneys) are like attorneys. Starting law school believing they will be defending their fellow man against big bad government. When they graduate they understand that it's about billable hours, the money.

Politicians running for office believing they will be fighting for their fellow man against big bad government. When they get elected they understand that it's about how much money will be pledged to their reelection campaign so that their guaranteed lifetime pension is secured, the money. Government's version of the golden parachute.

WalkingWolf · Mar 17, 2016

TFred said:
I remember reading something about this a while back, which lead me to find this article below.

I hope the NRA will fully grasp the importance of this issue. It is tragic that the very existence of the Second Amendment finds itself this close to the brink of destruction.

TFred

How the NRA Learned to Play Hardball on Supreme Court Nominations

This appointment could be it for the 2A, I have been warning of this, and now it is here. We might stave off gun confiscation if we keep a gun rights congress, but that will not last forever. As far as overturning NFA, or GCA, forget about it. If Obama is successful, if Hillary is elected we have lost.

I will not give up my guns, I have plans for them to be buried. Maybe in the future my family can reclaim the relics.

TFred · Mar 21, 2016

Today's order from the Supreme Court of the United States is pure gun-rights heaven.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts literally thumbed their noses at Heller and McDonald, and the SCOTUS takes them to the woodshed for a whippin'. For now.
It terrifies me to think that we are on the cusp of this entire ruling going the OTHER WAY, if the GOP does not hold its ground against Obama's gun-hating nomination.

TFred

Caetano v. Massachusetts: Vacated and Remanded

The final summary of the concurring statement by Alito and Thomas:

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self-defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

TFred · Mar 22, 2016

Today's column from Dennis Prager, well worth the read, and sharing on your social media outlets. The word must get out if we are to keep this liberal hack from destroying the Second Amendment. Sadly, that assessment is not hyperbole, but a very real probability if he ends up on the court.

TFred

As a bonus, this article also answers the question that greatly confuses many conservatives: "How could a habitual liar like Hillary Clinton earn even ONE vote, much less enough to become President?"

Judge Garland and the Left’s Disdain for Truth

Key Highlights - bold added by me for easy spotting:

The media’s coverage of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should serve as one of the most blatant examples of both the left-wing orientation of the news media and their willingness to play with truth.

On March 16, the day after Garland’s nomination, every major mainstream news outlet, both print and electronic, depicted the judge as a centrist.

The first sentence of The New York Times front page read: “WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge.”

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times front-page headline said: “Obama’s choice of popular centrist Merrick Garland for Supreme Court puts GOP to the test.”

Another headline, seen in the Washington Post, read: “Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot.” That same day, the Post published a second article mentioning how “Garland’s deep resume and centrist reputation appear to have positioned him well to earn the president’s nod.”

Two days later, the Los Angeles Times featured a news analysis on its front page, in which a reporter wrote that Garland may actually be “the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president.” The reporter also calls Garland “a superbly qualified judge with a cautious, centrist record.”

There is no truth to any of these reports — something easily proved by both Judge Garland’s decisions and, amazingly, by the newspapers’ reports themselves.

Take the Los Angeles Times’ front-page “news analysis,” for example. After describing the judge as a moderate and centrist, the LA Times reporter writes:

“If the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, is replaced by a moderate-to-liberal Justice Garland, the court would tip to the left on several key issues, like abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gun control, campaign spending, immigration and environmental protection.”

In other words, the very same author who describes Garland as a centrist believes that Garland votes left on essentially every major issue confronting the nation and the Supreme Court.

Additionally, that very same day The New York Times headlined that Garland is a centrist, it published an article on the nomination noting that “If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.”

[...]

By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist.

And the more research one does, the bigger this lie appears.

OC for ME · Mar 22, 2016

Stare decisis is not/will not be so sacred if he sits before the Judiciary Committee (Chuck Schumer) as it is when a conservative judge is nominated.

utbagpiper · Mar 22, 2016

WalkingWolf said:
I will not give up my guns, I have plans for them to be buried. Maybe in the future my family can reclaim the relics.

A buried gun is not much better than a gun turned in to be cut into pieces. It isn't like guns confiscated from civilians would add anything to our enemies' arsenals.

To bury guns is to give up the fight.

Hoping for someone in the future to reclaim them as anything more than historic relics is beyond wishful thinking. If we get to the point that guns have to be buried, it is either time to start shooting or to just admit we are never going to shoot. Should this nation ever face full blown gun confiscation, then the most apt words to consider are from Patrick Henry:

"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?

...

"Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation;

...

"Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

...

"Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!"

And for this reason, I suspect we will not face full blown confiscation, but rather the death by a thousand cuts. Full confiscation would bring revolution. But another ban on scary looking guns with existing ownership grandfathered? "Universal background checks" for private sales? Safe storage laws and strict liability? Duty to retreat laws? And all this as the next generation is indoctrinated (as the current generation has been) in the government/union day cares (...er rather, public schools) that private ownership of guns is barbaric and counterproductive. Our opponents will work to divide us as they have in the past and some will happily play along as they attack fellow gun owners as "Fuds" or "P4Pers" or for being "idiots" over any and every rar accident or injury involving firearms.

The devil himself knows well enough to capture his prey with flaxen cords before binding them down with strong chains.

utbagpiper · Mar 22, 2016

OC for ME said:
Stare decisis is not/will not be so sacred if he sits before the Judiciary Committee (Chuck Schumer) as it is when a conservative judge is nominated.

The natural disabilities under which we labor.

We feel honor bound to be honest and accurate, while opponents of liberty suffer no such challenges.

Conservatives feel bound to respect precedence whenever possible. Progressives are all about overturning every status quo with which they disagree.

And of course, Roe v Wade was writ in stone by the hand of God himself, while Heller, McDonald, and Citizens United were the result of big corporate money buying off the court.

Charles

And Here We Go:Obama Nominates Gun-Hater to SCOTUS

TFred

Regular Member

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

TFred

Regular Member

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

davidmcbeth

Banned

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

user

Accomplished Advocate

JoeSparky

Centurion

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

utbagpiper

Banned