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

[Doc]

In consideration of the votes of the four dissenting members of the court yesterday, one must also look with some depth into the two (now liberal) members appointed by Republican presidents, and when you review their judicial backgrounds before appointment to SCOTUS, you will find that, in large part, these two DID have "constructionist" records in their decisions on lower courts from whence they came.........they became "liberals" after they served on the high court for a number of years.

I have heard it discussed by students of the Supreme Court that the liberal social environment in DC has an unfortunate habit of being somewhat ideologically corrosive, and if an individual justice is steeped in it long enough, and allows these factors to weigh on their opinions, this type of ideological change can occur.

I therefore, cannot blame the Republican presidents who appointed these justices to the bench, as they made their selection based on the best information that they had at the time......what happens after that.....well, just happens........there are no guarantees.

Whether or not John McCain will appoint justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia is unknown, and if he appoints one or two, it is also unknown whether the new justice will "stay" that way.   One must also consider that the justices that are hanging on by their fingernails are all of the liberals on the court, so if we end up with a liberal in the White House the appointees are not likely to change the complexion of the court to any great extent.  I would also posit that there is historical precedent for a "liberal" justice to swing the other way as well, so all of these factors pretty much become a strictly academic exercise.  I doubt that even Obama can find a more liberal judge than Ginsberg, or Souter

As an aside, those of us who are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment owe a great debt of gratitude to an individual whose name has not surfaced in the press at all, and is unlikely to do so.  This person is Robert Levy, with the Cato Institute, who single-handedly, out of his own pocket, funded the legal fight in Heller vs DC.  Hats off to Mr. Levy, the nation owes you thanks........BTW, I'm told that ironically, Mr. Levy does not even own a gun......

doc

[Jim]

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

it wasn't until recently (2001 till present) that partisan politics came into play with this.  if they had the bar's blessing, it was largely rubber stamp.

[Chris_]

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

it wasn't until recently (2001 till present) that partisan politics came into play with this.  if they had the bar's blessing, it was largely rubber stamp.

Then how do you explain Robert Bork?  Or Clarence Thomas?

[USA4ME]

I have heard it discussed by students of the Supreme Court that the liberal social environment in DC has an unfortunate habit of being somewhat ideologically corrosive, and if an individual justice is steeped in it long enough, and allows these factors to weigh on their opinions, this type of ideological change can occur.

I appreciate you expressing your opinion on these matters, but wanted to highlight this point you made because I was thinking about it today.  When you've got a culture built around the need to stay afloat by taking from citizens via taxes in order to redistribute it to where you need in order to support your culture, it's a receipe for disaster.  Now throw judges into that mix who want to be part of the social scene of the community in which they live and naturally they're going to be influenced.  In the Roman Empire, Rome was corrupt.  In the Greek Empire, Athens was corrupt.  It's nothing new.

So when you hear peole say "The problem is DC and the culture that surrounds it," it's a fact, a legitimate grievance, and well supported by history.

.

[Hawkgirl]

I didn't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this point was already brought up...but I heard the opponents of this decision stated they can still keep guns out of D.C. by using zoning laws to keep them out.  Don't know if that is a real option or not but if so, the libtards have sunk to a new low.

[Wretched Excess]

I have heard it discussed by students of the Supreme Court that the liberal social environment in DC has an unfortunate habit of being somewhat ideologically corrosive, and if an individual justice is steeped in it long enough, and allows these factors to weigh on their opinions, this type of ideological change can occur.

I appreciate you expressing your opinion on these matters, but wanted to highlight this point you made because I was thinking about it today.  When you've got a culture built around the need to stay afloat by taking from citizens via taxes in order to redistribute it to where you need in order to support your culture, it's a receipe for disaster.  Now throw judges into that mix who want to be part of the social scene of the community in which they live and naturally they're going to be influenced.  In the Roman Empire, Rome was corrupt.  In the Greek Empire, Athens was corrupt.  It's nothing new.

So when you hear peole say "The problem is DC and the culture that surrounds it," it's a fact, a legitimate grievance, and well supported by history.

.

point.well.spoken.

H5

[TheSarge]

it wasn't until recently (2001 till present) that partisan politics came into play with this.  if they had the bar's blessing, it was largely rubber stamp.

When the trouble and obfuscation began is when President Bush decided not to listen to the recommendations of the very Liberal ABA.

And seeing as how the Democrats in Congress are in the pocket of the Bar Assoc...they were duty bound at that point to block damn near every nomination the President sent up...even if they had the highest rating the Bar gives out to Judges.

Then how do you explain Robert Bork?  Or Clarence Thomas?

They were true Conservatives not RINO's or Libs pretending to be Conservative (see O'Connor and Souter)...therefore they fell victim to the Liberal Attack Dogs of the Democrat party and the MSM.

Bork's name is now synonymous with getting a raw deal and Thomas had his name and reputation forever sullied and barely made it through confirmation.

[Thor]

Perhaps it's time to reconsider just exactly for whom we are voting. This election is VERY reminiscent of the 1996(?) election in MN. We had Skip Humphrey, a devout liberal; Norm Coleman, a RINO (a Dem conveniently turned "conservative" for that election); and Jesse Ventura, a Libertarian. The odds were against Jesse and he WON!!! It was a movement against the status quo. While Jesse was a GREAT Governor, he did accomplish some good things. His bigger problem is that he let his alligator mouth get him in trouble with folks. While he made me laugh and he was usually RIGHT, he tended to offend a lot of the folks. There ARE other alternatives out there besides Barfstar or McLame.

[Rebel]

Perhaps it's time to reconsider just exactly for whom we are voting. This election is VERY reminiscent of the 1996(?) election in MN. We had Skip Humphrey, a devout liberal; Norm Coleman, a RINO (a Dem conveniently turned "conservative" for that election); and Jesse Ventura, a Libertarian. The odds were against Jesse and he WON!!! It was a movement against the status quo. While Jesse was a GREAT Governor, he did accomplish some good things. His bigger problem is that he let his alligator mouth get him in trouble with folks. While he made me laugh and he was usually RIGHT, he tended to offend a lot of the folks. There ARE other alternatives out there besides Barfstar or McLame.

Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.

[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 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.)

You are absolutely correct.

[Miss Mia]

Perhaps it's time to reconsider just exactly for whom we are voting. This election is VERY reminiscent of the 1996(?) election in MN. We had Skip Humphrey, a devout liberal; Norm Coleman, a RINO (a Dem conveniently turned "conservative" for that election); and Jesse Ventura, a Libertarian. The odds were against Jesse and he WON!!! It was a movement against the status quo. While Jesse was a GREAT Governor, he did accomplish some good things. His bigger problem is that he let his alligator mouth get him in trouble with folks. While he made me laugh and he was usually RIGHT, he tended to offend a lot of the folks. There ARE other alternatives out there besides Barfstar or McLame.

Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.

Nah, I say all of you guys should vote Barr.  It'll send a message to McCain & the GOP.





 

[Rebel]

Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.

Nah, I say all of you guys should vote Barr.  It'll send a message to McCain & the GOP.

 

....and to our military, our economy, our enemies, our healthcare professionals, and our job creators. Yeah, I'm thinking no. Barack with a liberal Congress will be Carter 10-fold. ...and I don't think I have to educate anyone on what THAT f'n peanut farmer did. 

[rich_t]

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 ******* 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 ******* ankles and sending up "compromise" nominees.  Considering that he's already quite comfortable making such "reaches across the ******* 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.

I've been saying that ever since the guy won the nomination.  The man has done nothing to convince me that he will indeed nominate strict constructionist justices.  He has a recent history of "reaching across the aisle" that worries me greatly.

[Rebel]

We're at war with some really dangerous f'n people, and McCain is:



battle tested.

Does he mean he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years? **** NO! However, any soldier knows, you stay until the job is finished or you shouldn't have gone at all. The NVA were about a week away from giving up before the Damn liberals coerced us into pulling out.

[Rebel]

I've been saying that ever since the guy won the nomination.  The man has done nothing to convince me that he will indeed nominate strict constructionist justices.  He has a recent history of "reaching across the aisle" that worries me greatly.

Fine, vote for Barr, or whomever. Be sure to scan your "Thank You" letter from Obama and post it here. 

[Miss Mia]

Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.

Nah, I say all of you guys should vote Barr.  It'll send a message to McCain & the GOP.

 

....and to our military, our economy, our enemies, our healthcare professionals, and our job creators. Yeah, I'm thinking no. Barack with a liberal Congress will be Carter 10-fold. ...and I don't think I have to educate anyone on what THAT f'n peanut farmer did. 

Oh honey, you know I'm just messing with you.   

[Rebel]

Oh honey, you know I'm just messing with you.   

Mia, you're not the one that concerns me. You're a liberal. You voting for Obama, believe it or not, doesn't bother me. What BOTHERS me is people saying they won't vote for McCain because he doesn't fit into their exact mold they view as a Conservative. I've done that shit....TWICE. Got Clinton, BOTH Damn TIMES.

[rich_t]

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.

I may just have to adopt you.  Or you can adopt me.  Are you sure we aren't twins?

You sure post like I think on this issue.

 

[Rebel]

You people that say you're conservative, and want someone to believe EXACTLY as you believe, well, you need to get off your lazy asses and run yourself. I have NEVER agreed with ANY candidate 100%.

[Miss Mia]

Oh honey, you know I'm just messing with you.   

Mia, you're not the one that concerns me. You're a liberal. You voting for Obama, believe it or not, doesn't bother me. What BOTHERS me is people saying they won't vote for McCain because he doesn't fit into their exact mold they view as a Conservative. I've done that shit....TWICE. Got Clinton, BOTH Damn TIMES.

I agree with you (in opposite of course).  Obama is the opposite of McCain.  I can't see how a conservative would justify voting 3rd party when the election is sure to be close and give the win to Obama.  It doesn't make sense to me.

[Miss Mia]

You people that say you're conservative, and want someone to believe EXACTLY as you believe, well, you need to get off your lazy asses and run yourself. I have NEVER agreed with ANY candidate 100%.

I've never agreed with a candidate 100%.  If I did, I would easily think they were lying to me.  To expect them to fall in line with you 100% is just naive. 

[Jim]

You people that say you're conservative, and want someone to believe EXACTLY as you believe, well, you need to get off your lazy asses and run yourself. I have NEVER agreed with ANY candidate 100%.

I was in the 80's with Uncle Fred, thats pretty good in my book !

[Thor]

Well, unless Barr gets off his ass and truly starts campaigning, as far as I'm concerned, he's a distraction. A couple of network TV appearances doesn't really constitute a campaign. BTW, I DID vote for Jesse!!!  

As far as agreeing 100% with a candidate, ain't gonna happen. I DON'T like Barr's stance on Iraq. There's a couple of other things I don't like about him. I STILL like him better than McLame. The Barfstar is a non-contender for me. I ABHOR Socialism and Marxism!!

I still fail to comprehend why Fred Thompson fell on his ass this nomination cycle. I REALLY preferred him. Duncan Hunter was another favorite.

[rich_t]

I didn't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this point was already brought up...but I heard the opponents of this decision stated they can still keep guns out of D.C. by using zoning laws to keep them out.  Don't know if that is a real option or not but if so, the libtards have sunk to a new low.

I have not seen that posted previously on this thread.  I'd be interested to see how any zoning laws can circumvent the recent ruling.

[Thor]

Zoning laws can only prohibit the sales and/ or transfers of handguns in a locality.

For a brief synopsis, read this:

The Last Gun Shop