...so he'll appoint good conservative Supreme Court justices, like Stevens and Souter.
I wish I had warmer, fuzzier feelings about the kind of justices a President McCain would nominate.
(And let's not forget that the flip side of that is a return to the good ol' days of the Rehnquisition; a merry band of tough-on-crime "conservatives" who never met a Fourth Amendment they wouldn't weaken. If the 2nd took the mugging yesterday that the 4th had taken through the '80s and '90s, we wouldn't be allowed to own butterknives, much less duck guns.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Yes, the Republicans have a very spotty record on SCOTUS appointments. About half of them turn out to be Bolshieviks.
'Course, the alternative is the Democrats, who appoint 100% Bolshieviks.
How many Democrat appointed justices were in the majority on Heller again?
I wish my glass was always half full. :(
well, i think it was you who said something like:
At least conservatives want me to have guns in the event I really get pissed off at what they're doing.
or some such
-SayUncle
I could vote for a conservative candidate.
I was going to say what alath said. I mean you can take a chance with McCain where you have a shot at getting a friendly justice, or you can allow Obama to take the state and know you'll end up with a collective rights Court that could decide to overturn the decision completely should the Chicago ban go that far, or at least make sure that all of the doors Scalia left open for us are closed.
Personally, I'll take my chances.
"I could vote for a conservative candidate."
Except that your typical conservative, I find, is A-OK with the thugs' door-kicking routine at 3AM, 'cuz one of your neighbors is pissed about your lawn not complying with the HOA maximum, so he tells 'em what they want to hear...[you fill in the rest]
I've had it with politicians.
Until I see ONE in public who is demonstrating some real thinking, I'm not wasting my time with the whole exercise.
Well, we have a crap shoot vs russian roulette with a fully loaded firearm. There is no viable third option. Yet. We do stand a far better chance with McCain than the Obamessiah. Anyone who stays at home, or writes in a "protest" vote is guaranteed to be outvoted by the dead demoncraps, and ensures we go socialist.
b&n, you must know some pretty typical conservatives, I suppose. None of the ones I know feel that way, but they must not be typical. All of the ones I know hate water fascists, door kicking stormtroopers, and the rest of the nanny staters.
Anyway, doesn't anyone remember the fuss over Souter when he was nominated? The Dems were upset that he lived by himself, in a cabin in the woods, and liked to read!!! From their perspective he turned out well, and they soiled their knickers for nothing. I think the real issue here is that a Republican president is likely to nominate a candidate with a solid legal background (Meirs notwithstanding), while a Dem will go right for the litmus test. Remember the apparently serious talk on the left about appointing Mario Cuomo to SCOTUS? Or Bill Clinton (although in that case I expect getting himself disbarred is too much of a hurdle, even for the Dems)? Anyone really want to see what kinds of creatures Barry the Oh will nominate?
Steve S,
Yes, as a matter of fact, your description is quite fitting of the situation.
Like I said, A-OK with the door-kicking routine, so long as there is a rubber-stamped warrant for marijuana (or anything else that is frowned upon) on it.
MORE TO THE POINT, McCain (the supposed conservative in this mess) is just awful, and he's about half socialist on most issues, if anyone cares to look. He's no friend to gun owners, despite the mailings that we've all been receiving from the large, national association of you-know-who. He's a Napoleanic little turd with an authority complex, and too stupid to tie his own shoes. He can kiss my ass.
Part of the problem with Supreme nominations is taking an individual legal expert who has, for his entire career, been subject to arguing as his client wished him to, then operating in a highly political environment that the appointed nature of his job depended on recognizing...
...and then putting him in a position for which he can never, ever lose his job for saying and doing what he REALLY thinks.
It's no wonder there've been a few "surprises".
I keep hearing from the Republicans how we need to vote for them because the Democrats are bad for us.
The Republicans had control of congress AND the Whitehouse for years, but the SCOTUS did more for our rights in one decision than the Republicans did in... ever.
Word verification VPCGW
I agree McCain probably won't put another Scalia on the bench.
But we don't need a Scalia to replace Stevens and Ginsburg, the two most decrepit justices and the two most likely to retire (or die) in the next 4 years.
Replacing them with two O'Connors might not sound all warm and fuzzy, but it would be a HUGE improvement.
Remember, even old Sandy was right 3/4 of the time. Compare that to Ginsburg, who I think has written exactly ZERO opinions I would endorse.
If Obama is elected, he'll put Erwin Chemerinski and Lawrence Tribe on the court... and when he gets the chance to replace Scalia and Kennedy, the two next on the age/health chart, look for Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell is currently defending OJ.
Wnat that?
No?
Then the time has come to get ENTHUSIASTIC about McCain. More importantly, to start grooming the next round of candidates for 2012/2016 when McCain will pass the torch. A McCain loss today, combined with the resulting loss of more congressional seats and SCOTUS, would probably mean no GOP control for another generation.
gullyborg,
So, if McCain nominates Hillary as his "reach across the aisle" initiative, it would be okay right?
I don't see how Obama could make Scotus worse. We have had both Kelo which eviscerated what was left of the 4th, and now Heller which has gut shot the 2nd. Wow it's an individual "right" subject to restrictions, which makes it really sound like a priviledge.
OTOH, what has the GOP done for me? They really don't seem to be any different where the rubber meets the road.
"...and now Heller which has gut shot the 2nd."
Sorry, but I call bullshit on that. I can read, friend.
"Wow it's an individual "right" subject to restrictions, which makes it really sound like a priviledge."
But those restrictions can be appealed; the Heller case was never going to be the end-all of all gun-rights cases, it was mainly a way to get leverage in order to open the door on such cases. We've got the door unlocked, now let's start kicking it in.
gregg, this is Midway, not Nagasaki. Should we have given up after Pearl Harbor? Should we have given up because Midway didn't end the war? Obama would put a justice on the court that would rule that the 2nd protected the right of the states to have militias. I have no doubt about that.
What part of "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia..." do you not understand? The idea of a complete and total ban on guns is gone! Unequivocally gone! The Joyce Foundation's dream is gone! They can no longer achieve a total win. It's up to us now whether they get a draw, or defeat.
A McCain presidency gives us some chance of justices who believe in the Constitution. An Obama presidency gives us none, and your defeatist attitude doesn't help.
Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Heller sticks pitons, crowbars, and levers in nearly every chink in every existing gun law.
I can even see where Heller could be used as a handle to dismantle the "capricious" nature of licensing imposed by the Hughes Amendment to FOPA '86.
Tam is correct - broadly, I'm not so confident about the Hughes Amendment, we shall see.
Go read page 19 of the judgment. It's going to be very hard for gun-banners to weasel out of that. Scalia - SCOTUS - declared the existence of a natural law right to armed self defence. That has implications for International Law, let alone the USA.
Sure, any government / international `authority' can deny rights if it can get away with it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make sure they don't.
Wow it's an individual "right" subject to restrictions, which makes it really sound like a privilege.
Except that so is every other right. None are absolute. The Court didn't close the door on many possibilities, but it seriously changed the frame of the debate. Sure, we may have to live with the restrictions on criminals and the mentally ill. We might have to deal with some time/place restrictions such as schools. But The Court basically said it's a broad individual right, and not much else, when you get down to it. Yes, it's possible the right will get narrower from here, but it might not. I think we hold the 5 justice majority for incorporation, and maybe even for the notion that licensing a right is a no no. The Court also seems willing to entertain the idea that a complete prohibition on carrying firearms outside the home offends the second amendment.
It's a pretty substantial victory, no matter how you cut it.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Post a Comment