Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban, 5-4

[Jim]

Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!

 

I've said that all along.  Its a virtual certainly that there will be openings among the most liberal ones.  the donkeys cannot be allowed to fill them.

[USA4ME]

Some passages from the written opinion of Justice Scalia:

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. . . . Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

Liberal-first, American somewhere way, way, way down the list Stephen Breyer wrote:

The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today's decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today's decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.

Justice Scalia continues:

He (Breyer) criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest-balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." . . .. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

.

[Lord Undies]

The silliest thing I heard from a liberal today was through an outrage rant about how people would now be killing all kinds of bears in order to keep and mount their arms.  He was kidding.  I hope.

[jendf]

This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.

As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.

Welcome to the dark side, Kev. Good to have you here. 

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!

 

You know how much it's a pain in the ass for us hardcore VRWC card carrying members to vote for Juan McLame? Granted, he'd be good on justices, but then again when we had a "moderate Republican" (read George H.W. Bush) we got Souter. But Obama would have the court filled with 9 Ginsburgs, so it is a really pain.

Echoed here ... even Hellen Keller would agree the court's decision should have been 9-0.

[Tess Anderson]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

But Old Bush also appointed Clarence Thomas, a 50-50 shot is better than none at all.

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law.

He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

 

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

But Old Bush also appointed Clarence Thomas, a 50-50 shot is better than none at all.

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law.

He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

 

Oh yeah, I remember that riff raff back when I was in 7th grade. Anita Hill and all... but anyways, since the SCOTUS is now recently flagrantly and very publicly trying to throw the Constitution to the wind, it is time ti get some more judges on that bench that abide by the Framer's Constitution, not the one's the libs try to read that they think James Madison wrote "The right to abortion at any age" or whatever in invisible ink. I will, albeit holding my nose the whole time, voting for McCain this election.

[rich_t]

Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!

 

The votes for Congress matter a hell of a lot more than the vote for Pres. this year.

[Jim]

Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!

 

The votes for Congress matter a hell of a lot more than the vote for Pres. this year.

most EXCELLENT point

[Thor]

My concern is the fact that the GOP has deserted their base. Far too many RINOs infest the Republican Party in today's world.

[Jim]

My concern is the fact that the GOP has deserted their base. Far too many RINOs infest the Republican Party in today's world.

unfortunately the mushy middle has widened and since you cannot win without gaining the majority of it what choice do they have ?

this is the downside of a two party system which it guaranteed by legislation making 3rd parties overly challenged.

[Chris_]

This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.

As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.

Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?

[Rebel]

Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?

Yes.

[Chris_]

Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!

 

The second amendment only affirms what is already a God-Given right of free men.  It did not grant that right, and if it had been struck down by the Commissars in black robes yesterday, that right wouldn't have been revoked.

People, we have been the victims of a major mind-**** over the past 100 years or so, and you and I have to wake the **** up and realize that unless we have committed a criminal act, YOU AND I DON'T ANSWER TO OUR GOVERNMENT.  Our rights do not originate with our government, they cannot be legally revoked by our government, and to so much as grant the argument to the contrary is to cede authority over your life to your government that it is not entitled to and it damned sure hasn't demonstrated competence to wield.

(Sorry for the rant guys.  I'm re-reading Liberal Fascism lately, and it's got me on something of a hair trigger.)

[Lord Undies]

This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.

As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.

Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?

Oh, absolutely!  Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4?  Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?  Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?  

At this stage of the election game it makes no sense at all to pretend punishing McCain by withholding votes will somehow improve your chances of defeating the known promises of the democrat party.  

[Chris_]

This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.

As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.

Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?

Oh, absolutely!  Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4?  Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?  Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?  

At this stage of the election game it makes no sense at all to pretend punishing McCain by withholding votes will somehow improve your chances of defeating the known promises of the democrat party.  

I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench.  Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?

As a secondary point to consider, so what if he does nominate strict constructionists to the USSC?  They still have to be approved by a senate that is likely to be the most liberal since after the 1982 mid-term elections.  What the hell gives you the impression that even if McLame won the election in a Reagan-esque landslide, Harry Reid and Co. will just acquiesce to the man's mandate and approve his nominations with nary a whimper?  The democrat senate will chase any strict constructionist nominees all the way out of the ****ing District with torches and pitchforks as heretics to their religious worship of political power, and in order to "get something done", McLame will be faced with bending over and grabbing the ****ing ankles and sending up "compromise" nominees.  Considering that he's already quite comfortable making such "reaches across the ****ing aisle", I don't think the senate will have to twist his arms too hard.  That means more David Souters, Anthony Kennedys and their kind.

Face it guys, we're ****ed seven ways from Sunday no matter which candidate we elect come November.

[DixieBelle]

We got Alito and Roberts. The numbers count. We have to come out in force come November. It's not just about POTUS. But if we throw our hands up and say, "well he'll give us more Souters so what's the point?" then it's most certainly going to happen. I'd rather go down fighting. At least then I will know everyone tried, everyone voted, we did what we could, etc..

I for one, don't think we're "f*cked" yet. Its a long, long, long time until November.

[Rebel]

I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench.  Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?

John McCain did exactly what he should have done as a Senator. Advise and consent. There was no legal or justifiable reason to keep those clowns off the bench and no, I don't agree with their politics, isn't a reason. That's the problem with the fools in the Senate now. They think it's their right and responsibility to nominate and appoint justices. It's not. That is the President's job.

[Chris_]

I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench.  Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?

John McCain did exactly what he should have done as a Senator. Advise and consent. There was no legal or justifiable reason to keep those clowns off the bench and no, I don't agree with their politics, isn't a reason. That's the problem with the fools in the Senate now. They think it's their right and responsibility to nominate and appoint justices. It's not. That is the President's job.

This case is a prime example of why they should have been kept off the bench in the first place.  One of the cornerstone tenets of the Constitution they took an oath to uphold, and these four turds couldn't see past their own personal political agendas.  If I knew who to take it to, I'd be on the horn with my congress-shits right now, twisting their arms for impeachment proceedings against these justices.  And to think that their history prior to their nomination to the USSC wouldn't show this kind of disregard for the Constitution in their decisions is farsical at best.  It was the president at the time's job to nominate justices who would uphold the Constitution.  It was the responsibility of the 100 Senators to review that nominee to verify that they would uphold the Constitution, and then approve or dis-approve the nomination based on that criterion.  Senator McCain abbrogated his responsibility to the Constitution as a Senator where these justices are concerned, and we're supposed to overlook that based on a politician's promise that he would fulfill as President the same responsibility he abbrogated as a Senator?

You can keep digging if you like, but I really don't think we're gonna find a pony underneath that pile of horseshit.

[Miss Mia]

I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench.  Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?

John McCain did exactly what he should have done as a Senator. Advise and consent. There was no legal or justifiable reason to keep those clowns off the bench and no, I don't agree with their politics, isn't a reason. That's the problem with the fools in the Senate now. They think it's their right and responsibility to nominate and appoint justices. It's not. That is the President's job.

Agreed.

[Lord Undies]

This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.

As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.

Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?

Oh, absolutely!  Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4?  Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?  Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?  

At this stage of the election game it makes no sense at all to pretend punishing McCain by withholding votes will somehow improve your chances of defeating the known promises of the democrat party.  

I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench.  Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?

As a secondary point to consider, so what if he does nominate strict constructionists to the USSC?  They still have to be approved by a senate that is likely to be the most liberal since after the 1982 mid-term elections.  What the hell gives you the impression that even if McLame won the election in a Reagan-esque landslide, Harry Reid and Co. will just acquiesce to the man's mandate and approve his nominations with nary a whimper?  The democrat senate will chase any strict constructionist nominees all the way out of the ****ing District with torches and pitchforks as heretics to their religious worship of political power, and in order to "get something done", McLame will be faced with bending over and grabbing the ****ing ankles and sending up "compromise" nominees.  Considering that he's already quite comfortable making such "reaches across the ****ing aisle", I don't think the senate will have to twist his arms too hard.  That means more David Souters, Anthony Kennedys and their kind.

Face it guys, we're ****ed seven ways from Sunday no matter which candidate we elect come November.

Your answers are yes, yes, and yes.  Interesting. 

[Chris_]

Fine Lord Undies, I'll answer your questions three directly.

Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4? 

Yes.  I judge his candidacy by his track record, not by what the man promises.  Voting to confirm the appointment of 3 of the 4 Constitutional illiterates on the bench of the Supreme Court is not the track record of someone I want working to preserve, protect and defend MY Constitution.

Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?

Can you show me how GIVING Juan McLame my vote would improve my chances of getting better justices?  I've already got Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Brier legislating from the bench because this man - among many others, admittedly - abbrogated his responsibilities under the Constitution.  What evidence do you have that electing him to the Chief executive's position is gonna be the "Come to Jesus" moment he's needed to straighten up and fly right? 

Like I said, we're equally ****ed whether Juan or the BarrackStar is sitting in the Oval orifice come January 20th.  I don't see how we're any less ****ed driving off the damned cliff at 60mph as opposed to 110mph.

Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?

If you're looking to government for your hope, you're even more screwed than you think.  I look to myself and my God for survival, and given the choice, I don't even bother God with such minutiae.  I will vote for whomever demonstrates to me the greatest grasp of the Constitution, and the best understanding that the best of America isn't in Washington DC, and doesn't issue forth from Government like water from the rock.  I will maintain my "disaster supplies" against the day that they'll be needed.  I'll continue to teach my children correct principles - and de-program the indoctrination they get at public school each night.  And when the government of this Country goes too damned far, and the "social fabric" decends into chaos, I'm ready to batten down the hatches and protect my family until it's over.

[Lord Undies]

Fine Lord Undies, I'll answer your questions three directly.

Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4? 

Yes.  I judge his candidacy by his track record, not by what the man promises.  Voting to confirm the appointment of 3 of the 4 Constitutional illiterates on the bench of the Supreme Court is not the track record of someone I want working to preserve, protect and defend MY Constitution.

You say this knowing the alternative is 100% against everything you say you want to preserve.  That doesn't make sense.  You are compromising yourself and your stated beliefs in order to make a point?

You will have two choices in November.  Obama and McCain.  You are choosing Obama, an known Marxist, in an attempt to spite McCain because he has not followed your ideas of a perfect Republican candidate.  I'm floored by your thinking.

We know McCain is against the legal murder of unborn babies.  We know McCain is committed to defending our nation against the greatest enemy and threats we have ever endured.  We know his nomination for the Supreme Court will be more conservative than anyone Obama will consider, but yet you choose Obama.  Interesting, to say the least.

Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?

Can you show me how GIVING Juan McLame my vote would improve my chances of getting better justices?  I've already got Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Brier legislating from the bench because this man - among many others, admittedly - abrogated his responsibilities under the Constitution.  What evidence do you have that electing him to the Chief executive's position is gonna be the "Come to Jesus" moment he's needed to straighten up and fly right? 

See above.  You have two choices in November.  One (Obama) stands for everything you claim to detest, with a senate record to back it up, and the other (McCain) with real positive credentials in the area of national defense and a respect for individual life.   

Like I said, we're equally ****ed whether Juan or the BarrackStar is sitting in the Oval orifice come January 20th.  I don't see how we're any less ****ed driving off the damned cliff at 60mph as opposed to 110mph.

You don't see it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference.  It just means you don't have a clear picture.  These two candidates are not the same at all.  You should educate yourself before you decide to deny your best chance to stand by your beliefs while rewarding a candidate who will without a doubt stand against you.

Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?

If you're looking to government for your hope, you're even more screwed than you think.  I look to myself and my God for survival, and given the choice, I don't even bother God with such minutiae.  I will vote for whomever demonstrates to me the greatest grasp of the Constitution, and the best understanding that the best of America isn't in Washington DC, and doesn't issue forth from Government like water from the rock.  I will maintain my "disaster supplies" against the day that they'll be needed.  I'll continue to teach my children correct principles - and de-program the indoctrination they get at public school each night.  And when the government of this Country goes too damned far, and the "social fabric" decends into chaos, I'm ready to batten down the hatches and protect my family until it's over.

I don't look to government for anything, but there are realities neither you nor I can deny.  Whether you admit it or not, who we seat in our nation's chairs of power makes a difference.  If yesterday didn't teach you as much, then maybe you deserve a Barak Obama.  I know I don't.

[Chris_]

Fine Lord Undies, I'll answer your questions three directly.

Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4? 

Yes.  I judge his candidacy by his track record, not by what the man promises.  Voting to confirm the appointment of 3 of the 4 Constitutional illiterates on the bench of the Supreme Court is not the track record of someone I want working to preserve, protect and defend MY Constitution.

You say this knowing the alternative is 100% against everything you say you want to preserve.  That doesn't make sense.  You are compromising yourself and your stated beliefs in order to make a point?

You will have two choices in November.  Obama and McCain.  You are choosing Obama, an known Marxist, in an attempt to spite McCain because he has not followed your ideas of a perfect Republican candidate.  I'm floored by your thinking.

We know McCain is against the legal murder of unborn babies.  We know McCain is committed to defending our nation against the greatest enemy and threats we have ever endured.  We know his nomination for the Supreme Court will be more conservative than anyone Obama will consider, but yet you choose Obama.  Interesting, to say the least.

Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?

Can you show me how GIVING Juan McLame my vote would improve my chances of getting better justices?  I've already got Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Brier legislating from the bench because this man - among many others, admittedly - abrogated his responsibilities under the Constitution.  What evidence do you have that electing him to the Chief executive's position is gonna be the "Come to Jesus" moment he's needed to straighten up and fly right? 

See above.  You have two choices in November.  One (Obama) stands for everything you claim to detest, with a senate record to back it up, and the other (McCain) with real positive credentials in the area of national defense and a respect for individual life.   

Like I said, we're equally ****ed whether Juan or the BarrackStar is sitting in the Oval orifice come January 20th.  I don't see how we're any less ****ed driving off the damned cliff at 60mph as opposed to 110mph.

You don't see it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference.  It just means you don't have a clear picture.  These two candidates are not the same at all.  You should educate yourself before you decide to deny your best chance to stand by your beliefs while rewarding a candidate who will without a doubt stand against you.

Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?

If you're looking to government for your hope, you're even more screwed than you think.  I look to myself and my God for survival, and given the choice, I don't even bother God with such minutiae.  I will vote for whomever demonstrates to me the greatest grasp of the Constitution, and the best understanding that the best of America isn't in Washington DC, and doesn't issue forth from Government like water from the rock.  I will maintain my "disaster supplies" against the day that they'll be needed.  I'll continue to teach my children correct principles - and de-program the indoctrination they get at public school each night.  And when the government of this Country goes too damned far, and the "social fabric" decends into chaos, I'm ready to batten down the hatches and protect my family until it's over.

I don't look to government for anything, but there are realities neither you nor I can deny.  Whether you admit it or not, who we seat in our nation's chairs of power makes a difference.  If yesterday didn't teach you as much, then maybe you deserve a Barak Obama.  I know I don't.

 

 

[Chris_]

All I know is that at the beginning of this election cycle, I swore that I was not going to cast my vote for evil, even the lesser evil.

My yardstick for measuring the candidates by has to be the Constitution they'll be sworn to protect and defend, and using that yardstick to take the measure of McCain, I find him lacking.  His record shows disdain for the individual rights of his countrymen (McCain/Feingold), a lack of regard for the rule of law (McCain/Kennedy), and a man in love with the trappings of power, with no love for the responsibilities of his office.  His ardent stance in favor of the McCain/Lieberman global warming debacle is among the most fascist (remember, I'm in the middle of re-reading Liberal Fascism) anti-American  positions you'll find from any of this season's candidates - including Hitlery and Borat's support of nationalizing the health care system.  

The man can - and will - say whatever he has to to try to win back the conservative base, but his track record shows him to be just another lying sack of shit when it comes to delivering to the conservatives, and as one who got sick and tired of beating my head against a brick wall when I was his constituent (I lived in Arizona for 10 years), he will not get my vote again.