Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Obama says Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg Are Sensible Judges

3K views 31 replies 18 participants last post by  KenInColo 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Remember these three are the ones that said it's not an individual right and one more would have been disastrous.
This is incorrect. All the justices agreed the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
 
#8 ·
If this is incorrect then why does the following excerpt, taken directly from the dissenting opinion, say what it does?

"Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)."
 
#4 ·
future gun battles will be determined according to the judges that are put on benches. we all know what clinton appointed judges have done and we see first hand with Heller what the George W. judges have done. It's very important to the 2a. ACLU types like ginsburg spell nothing but trouble for this country.

the erosion of the 2nd amendment will be the basis for the erosion of every other liberty and freedom we hold dear. the govt. won't have to fear the populous - which was the basis for the 2nd amendment. keeping the govt. in check.
 
#7 ·
In both dissenting opinions, Stevens and Breyer acknowledged the Second Amendment protected an individual right. The other 'liberal' Justices signed both dissents.

We discussed this in detail in Kerbouchard's thread.
 
#6 ·
After he voted against Roberts’ confirmation in 2005, Obama said some court cases “can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
He adds, “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,” he told reporters, responding to McCain’s May speech on the courts.

Hmmm, no mention of the Constitution. Doesn't surprise me.


Whereas:
McCain believes that judges should strictly interpret laws as written and not impose their own views or experiences when making decisions.
McCain said judges should not indulge in “judicial activism,” particularly in controversial cases that deal with politically charged issues like abortion or gay rights. Decisions on those subjects should rest on the shoulders of state legislatures and voters - not courts, McCain said.


:wave:
 
#9 ·
After he voted against Roberts’ confirmation in 2005, Obama said some court cases “can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
He adds, “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,” he told reporters, responding to McCain’s May speech on the courts.

Hmmm, no mention of the Constitution. Doesn't surprise me.


Whereas:
McCain believes that judges should strictly interpret laws as written and not impose their own views or experiences when making decisions.
McCain said judges should not indulge in “judicial activism,” particularly in controversial cases that deal with politically charged issues like abortion or gay rights. Decisions on those subjects should rest on the shoulders of state legislatures and voters - not courts, McCain said.
+2.
 
#16 ·
This subject is one of the most important issues on the 2A rights. The title is well put, and if Obama gets in he will appoint such justices and judges, and we will suffer loss of those rights in various ways.

It is political issue, but an important one to 2A rights.

McCain is our only hope to have a USSC that will not interpret the Constitution based upon what they want it to say, but what it was meant to mean.

Regards,
Jerry
 
#17 ·
Well this thread is related to the 2A in some way. I doubt there will be another 2A based challenge before the USSC for awhile but we will see. The membership here posts 5+ threads a day bashing Obama/democrats in one way or another. The ones that don't relate to guns or the 2A we can pretty quickly. The others we let run until they degenerate into the usual name calling, hyperbole and arguments about nothing. Everyone here circling around about politics isn't doing a thing to help any pro-rights candidate. You need to get out there where the swing voters are and talk politics with them. I think pretty much everyone who frequents a gun forum knows Obama = bad for gun owners.

If you truly value your gun rights and the Constitution vote for Bob Barr.
 
#18 ·
If you truly value your gun rights and the Constitution vote for Bob Barr.
I'm surprised you, as a moderator, would write this. Maybe it is time to close the thread. A vote for Bob Barr will more than likely help Obama win the election.

The fact is that the Justices who are likely to retire or pass away are the liberal Justices so an Obama presidency would not change the makeup of the Court. After all, how left wing could any nominee be as compared with Ginsberg?
 
#20 ·
This is a concealed carry gun forum so, of course, the Second Amendment and our indivual right to continue to carry is of paramount importance in the threads and the posts that follow, as it should be.

But, we shoud all bear in mind that that there are many other issues that can come before the Supreme Court that will have an indirect, but important impact, on our right to continue to be able to protect ourselves and our families, and, as has been pointed out, the next president will likely be able to change the complexion of the Court by his appointments.
 
#21 ·
Keep the big picture

But, we shoud all bear in mind that that there are many other issues that can come before the Supreme Court that will have an indirect, but important impact, on our right to continue to be able to protect ourselves and our families, and, as has been pointed out, the next president will likely be able to change the complexion of the Court by his appointments.
While I absolutely agree with the above post by Ron, I do want to point out that there are about 120 cases that come before the court each term. Each, has an impact on our lives in various ways; often subtle, but sometimes rather dramatic. I'm thinking of rulings on ERISA and medical insurance claims as a recent decision which affects almost everyone who works, in a generally negative way.

The decisions by the SC affect everything from employer-employee labor law, to obscure and arcane technical legal matters that only corporate giants care about.

NEVER be a one issue voter. Suppose for example, you are a really strong supporter of let's just say for example, immigrant rights (whatever that means). Would you cut off your nose to spite your face by wanting a SC member who is with you on this issue but not with you on 10 other issues you might support too.

Or suppose you want judges who will overrule environmental laws so the border security fence can be built. Will you be so happy when they allow that coal plant near your home? Or allow the local chemical company to spill their stuff into your drinking water supply?

Or you want judges who will strictly interpret The Constitution, yet these same ones will gut the eminent domain provisions, or the 4ths rights of the accused.

Vote for your favorite guy by looking at the big picture. Life is all about compromises and accommodation. And especially, it is not about cutting off your nose to spite your face by voting for someone who can't do the job because you like his position on a particular subject. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
#22 ·
Food for thought from the Chris Bird book Thank God I Had a Gun:

In the late 1700s the great British jurist William Blackstone identified the possession of arms as a fundamental right of Englishmen. Since 1920 however, successive governments have systematically eroded this right. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is virtually against the law in Britain to use force, let alone deadly force, to protect one's person or property, and the government has confiscated most privately owned firearms, which are the most effective means of self-defense.

For decades British governments have not considered self-defense to be a legitimate reason for possessing a firearm. As a result violent crime in England has surpassed that of the United States. According to author Joyce Lee Malcolm, in her excellent book Guns & Violence: The English Experience almost half of all burglaries in Britain take place when a resident is home. In the United States it is only 13 percent. The obvious conclusion, supported by research, is that criminals in the U.S. are afraid of confronting an armed homeowner. In Britain burglars do not care because they are confident they will meet no resistance."
Consider then how the British get this way.

If, as the NRA states: the 2nd Amendment is "America's First Freedom", our elected leaders and their judicial appointees should act to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Any other hard won rights or issues will eventually suffer when the right to keep and bear arms is rendered impotent by government and the courts.
 
#23 ·
While all nine supreme court justices agreed that the 2nd amendment was an individual right they varied greatly on how much the right can be controlled or suppressed. Even the majority opinion agreed that the Federal government can ban possession by felons, make courts gun free zones (seems self serving, Hmm), etc. They are both wrong because the 2nd is the only amendment that says the right "may not be infringed". So what does infringe mean. The freedom of speech can certainly be infringed, you can't go into a crowded theater and yell fire, etc. Isn't making gun free zones infringing on the right??? Isn't banning class III weapons infringing??
 
#24 ·
Certainly if Obama is elected he is likely to get a chance to appoint a justice or two and that is important since we know the type he is likely to nominate.

This side of the issue has been talked about quite a bit. What I haven't heard anyone mention yet is which justice(s) are likely to resign next? This to me is far more important. If Obama wins and replaces a Breyer or Stevens or Ginsburg or O'Connor or Kennedy that's not going to hurt b/c they're liberals anyway. Far worse would be him replacing Scalia or Thomas. Roberts and Alito are fairly recent appointments and young and not likely to retire for a while.

The link is to a pdf of SC Justices giving their dates of appointment and who nominated them.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/members.pdf

With the exception of Scalia, the Justices who have been on there longest and most likely to retire are liberals.
 
#25 ·
You bring up a very good point. Remember the Heller case was decided by a one justice margin and all it would take to swing the other way is to lose a conservative judge. This most likely would happen by resignation but there is also a chance of health issues. Appointments over the next 4 or 8 years will impact the country for a long time.
 
#27 ·
We need to also bear in mind that, at times, the justice appointed turns out not to be what the President who appointed him or her, expects.

A good example is Chief Justice Earl Warren, one of the most Liberal Justices we have had on the Court, who I believe was appointed by President Eisenhower, who I am certain did not think that was what he was getting by that appointment.

Another example is Justice Souter, appointed I believe by presidnt Reagen, who has also turned out to be left of center, again not what the president thought he was getting.
 
#29 ·
my thoughts about Obama, including his stance on guns

Barack Obama: His chief issue is Civil Rights. He cites pay inequalities between men and women, hate crimes on the rise, efforts to suppress the minority vote and disparities in the justice system. His plan is to strengthen civil rights enforcement, combat employment discrimination, expand hate crime statutes, end racial profiling and expand use of drug courts. I would personally love to see more explaination behind these one sentence plans because more than a few sound like "feel good" plans that attack societal problems but his plans are just to "combat" and "expand" without going further in explanation. On the economy he sounds more Republican than McCain or Bush with his plan to provide tax cuts, simplify and reform income taxes, increase trade, support job creation and invest in US Manufactoring. He seems to have said more in his economy issue than McCain could coneptualize but Obama goes into further details that enact social changes tied to the economy such as "deploy next generation broadband" internet, boost renewable energy, invest in rural areas, create universal mortgage credit, create fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosures, protect against caregiver discrimination and expand flexible work arrangements. Well, boosting internet and small towns sounds great but how will that really help? Boosting renewable energy also sounds good but how, which type and with what money? Furthermore, how would the government go about making businesses have flexible work arrangements or take affirmative action any further? His stance on education is to "place key emphasis at early care and education for infants", pour more money into No Child Left Behind, make the first $4000 of college education free as well as recruit, prepare, retain and reward teachers. Sounds great but I just have to wonder where all of this money would come from and hear more indepth plans on how he is going to reform No Child Left Behind. His Border Security stance would be to secure our borders, remove incentives to enter illegally, inprove our immigration system and work with Mexico. His plan would be to beef up security "at our ports of entry", increase the number of immigrants coming to America, remove incentives to enter illegally by "cracking down on employers" and finally to make illegal immigrants already here pay a fine, learn english and go to the back of the immigration line. First of all how would or should employers verify citizenship status that can%u2019t be falsified? Does he mean that he will turn business owners into unpaid immigration controllers? How is securing our borders at points of entry going to stop illegal acts of crossing the border and the smuggling of illegal items? No answers to be found...yet. Barack’s foreign policy deserves some attention for he advocated leaving Iraq on a time table, pressing the Iraqie leaders to make peace and "launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort to reach stability in Iraq and the Middle East". He also advocates diplomacy with Iran and discourages threats towards Iran and Syria. He makes the same song and dance about pushing for Palestinian-Israeli peace as the past Presidents have: "Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met." Agree or disagree, the most prominent stance Obama takes in his Foreign Policy issue is that Bush and Cheney are at the root of all the problems. It seems like Barack Obama has a lot to say about Civil Rights and injustices but really lacks on issues of civil liberties, personal wealth, personal freedom, the ability to self-determination and privacy. Personally I see a lack of second amendment support, but this is me and as always saves this issue for last. He just addresses "Sportsmen" and does not mention guns anywhere to be seen but implies that hunting is all that guns are good for in his general usage of "persuit of sport" but clearly does not grasp the fact that gun are more than just hunting tools, yet are also used in competition, shooting fun, self protection, home defense and, as the founding fathers intended, to be used when tyranny runs rampant. He does have a lot more to offer than McCain in the way of expressing more issues, having more issues and more plans but curiously remains mute on certain plans and issues such as Currency valuation, civil liberties, Patriot Act, US Infrastructure, US Sovereignty and the Second Amendment.

This Obama character is one strange guy, he comes out of left field, no one knows him, he has little experience, his closest friends spew racist or muslim hate and coupled with the fact that he does not like to give interviews he also stumbles and is not confident enough when at "Town Hall Meetings" doing Q and A.

:bier:
 
#32 ·
...This Obama character is one strange guy, he comes out of left field, no one knows him, he has little experience, his closest friends spew racist or muslim hate and coupled with the fact that he does not like to give interviews he also stumbles and is not confident enough when at "Town Hall Meetings" doing Q and A.

:bier:
I know this much about him:

His father was Muslim and gave him a Muslim name. Remember? Muslims? They attacked our country and want to 'kill us infidels wherever we can be found'.

His mother was a fellow traveler which is as close to being a commie as you can get w/o joining the party.

He hasn't done anything since elected to the Senate except run for President. He's as anti-gun and pro abortion as you can be.

I don't need much more info to know that I don't want him as my President.

Do I care that he's black? Nope. I would vote for Colin Powell or Condie Rice if they were running as Democrats against McCain in a NY minute.
 
#30 ·
This is the exact reason Obama cannot be elected! Like McCain or not he will be far better on the 2A vs Obama, and like some of you said the next supreme court nominations will have repercusions for years to come. A president's lasting legacy after he is long gone from office is his supreme court nominations. See how Reagan's legacy continues with Scalia, and Kennedy(well he is the flip voter though) but thank god Reagan was our president! Thank goodness the first Bush was president, i.e Thomas, and thank goodness George W is President, i.e Alito and Roberts!
 
#31 ·
Truer words have never been spoken. The only reason I voted for GWB was becuase of this issue.

Also, numerous lower federal judicial appointments will be made and the justice dept. will be headed by either someone like John Ashcroft (who said officially while Atty Gen, that the second amendment was about warding off tyranny, not duck hunting) or Janet Reno. Which is better? The Executive also has a say on the agenda of the ATF as an executive branch dept. Definately things to think about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top