Some SCOTUS info to chew over

Some SCOTUS info to chew over

This is a discussion on Some SCOTUS info to chew over within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Thought you guys might be interested to see this. Conclusions so far will I think be pretty obvious. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert ...

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Some SCOTUS info to chew over

  1. #1
    VIP Member (Retired Staff) Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    South West PA

    Some SCOTUS info to chew over

    Thought you guys might be interested to see this. Conclusions so far will I think be pretty obvious.


    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

    Monday, July 11, 2005

    It looks like the judicial rumor mill was right on the money. There
    had been increasing speculation in recent weeks that a Supreme Court
    Justice would be stepping down soon.

    And while many thought it would be Chief Justice Rehnquist because of
    his failing health, many Capitol Hill insiders suspected it would be
    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

    They were right. Justice O'Connor retired from the high court
    earlier this month, leaving a huge vacancy that President Bush will
    now have to fill.

    Obviously, no one outside of the President's closest advisors can
    definitively know who is on the President's "short list." But many
    insiders are reporting that the initial nod could go to Attorney
    General Alberto Gonzales.

    In a recent column, columnist Robert Novak reported, "George W. Bush
    loves Al Gonzales and would like his former chief counsel to head a
    'Gonzales Court.'"

    And The Washington Post recently admitted that Alberto Gonzales' name
    "echoes in Washington as one of the most likely Supreme Court
    candidates" (July 4, 2005).

    So what do we know about Alberto Gonzales? Would he be a plus or a
    minus when it comes to the Constitution in general or the Second
    Amendment in particular?

    As a matter of fact, we know quite a bit about this potential Supreme
    Court nominee. And what we know of the former Texas Supreme Court
    Justice is not comforting. (Gonzales was put on the highest state
    court by then-Texas Gov. George Bush in 1999.)

    When he testified before the U.S. Senate on January 18, 2005,
    Gonzales expressed his unequivocal support for gun control. Fox News
    quoted Gonzales on that day as saying, "The president has made it
    clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal
    assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course,
    support the president on this issue."

    Lest one think that Gonzales is just being a good soldier supporting
    his boss' position, one should realize that his support for gun
    control is heart felt.Gonzales referenced his brother, Tony, who is a
    SWAT officer in Houston. "I worry about his safety and the types
    of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. And he
    immediately proceeded to tell his senatorial inquisitors about his
    support for the semi-auto ban.

    Because he is a gun control supporter, one should immediately
    question Gonzales' commitment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Here again, the early indications are not good. Gonzales believes
    the Constitution is a "living document" and that only the nine
    justices on the court have the capacity to explain what it means.
    Such is the report from Joseph Farah, founder and head of

    Farah spent some time with Gonzales at a private dinner meeting, and
    in a November 11, 2004 column, reported he was "stunned" and
    "horrified" at Gonzales' view of the Constitution."The
    Supreme Court tells us what the Constitution says and means,"
    Gonzales said. And in his view, the high court actually "makes
    law" through its precedent-setting rulings.

    Thankfully, not all the potential nominees support gun control or
    have such a low view of the Constitution.Several justices who are
    currently on the bench would make excellent choices for the new
    vacancy. For example, Justice Janice Rogers Brown is one of the most
    recently confirmed judges to the federal courts. Brown was confirmed
    by the Senate last month by a 56-43 vote.

    As a Justice on the California Supreme Court, Brown referred to
    Roosevelt's New Deal as our "own socialist revolution." In
    regard to
    taxpayer supported welfare, she said that, "Theft is theft even when
    the government approves of the thievery."

    On gun rights, Brown sounds like a modern-day Annie Oakley. She used
    language from an amicus curiae brief that was submitted by Gun Owners
    of California to argue against Los Angeles' ban on gun shows.

    And her most extensive Second Amendment scholarship appeared in the
    case involving the California ban on semi-automatic firearms (Kassler
    v. Lockyer). In a decision upholding the California ban on certain
    semi-autos (the so-called "assault weapons"), she faulted the U.S.
    Supreme Court for picking and choosing which rights it liked.

    She most definitely came down on the right side, stating that the
    individual right to keep and bear arms is a "right expressly
    guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

    There are other conservative judges who are currently on the federal
    bench who also have a high regard for the U.S. Constitution. Judge
    Samuel Alito, Jr., in the Third Circuit, has argued that Congress has
    no right to regulate the private possession of machine guns. There
    is Edith Jones in the Fifth Circuit who understands that our
    "unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow

    And in the Ninth Circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski has chided his liberal
    colleagues for falling prey to the popular delusion that we are
    "better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the
    government payroll." He cites chapter and verse, showing how gun
    control has been used to subjugate blacks in the South, as well as
    other minorities all across the world."

    All too many of the other great tragedies of history -- Stalin's
    atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name
    but a few -- were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed
    populations," Kozinski said. "Many could well have been avoided or
    mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were
    equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act
    required here."

    [To see Kozinski's entire dissenting opinion against the California
    semi-auto ban, go to on the GOA

    The point should be clear. There are good judges who can fill the
    void on the Court. Despite his friendship with Alberto Gonzales, the
    President should be reminded that millions of people did not flock to
    the polls to defeat Al Gore and John Kerry just so he could appoint
    liberal anti-gunners to the high court.

    ACTION: Please contact President Bush and urge him to nominate a
    constitutionalist to the Supreme Court. And remind him that American
    gun owners do NOT want Alberto Gonzales, or anyone like him, to sit
    on the Court.

    You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at to send the President the
    pre-written message below. You can also contact the President using
    any of the following mediums:

    Comments: 202-456-1111
    Switchboard: 202-456-1414
    FAX: 202-456-2461

    --- Pre-written letter ---

    Dear President Bush:With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,
    you are faced with a tremendous opportunity to appoint a constitutional
    scholar who truly understands the rule of law and respects the Bill of

    Unfortunately, Alberto Gonzales is NOT that man!

    As one who respects the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
    (especially the Second Amendment), I hope that you will not appoint
    someone who holds views similar to those of Gonzales.

    You truly made an excellent choice in putting Justice Janice Rogers
    Brown on the federal bench. She understands the Second Amendment
    protects an individual right, and she realizes that the Supreme Court
    is supposed to interpret, not make, the laws. I hope that you will
    nominate either her or someone like her to the Supreme Court. Thank


    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!." - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  2. #2
    Member Array the-fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    bush will appoint whoever is politically acceptible to the senate, regardless if the appointee really will enforce the constitution or not. Even our current conservative court seems to think that private property rights pale in comparision to the needs of big government and big business.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Similar Threads

  1. Scotus ?
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2010, 12:49 PM
  2. Financial Crisis - Something to chew on
    By DaRedneck in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 13th, 2009, 03:23 PM
  3. What do we do if SCOTUS votes against us?!
    By Diesel 007 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 24th, 2007, 04:26 PM
  4. Another Case For The SCOTUS?
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 09:44 PM
  5. anybody have any info on marlins lever actions/guide guns and info on 45/70 caliber?
    By datruthab123 in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: June 16th, 2007, 01:51 AM