Obama says Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg Are Sensible Judges

This is a discussion on Obama says Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg Are Sensible Judges within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I put this here because of the far reaching implications of Supreme Court appointments on the Second Amendment. Remember these three are the ones that ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Obama says Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg Are Sensible Judges

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816

    Obama says Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg Are Sensible Judges

    I put this here because of the far reaching implications of Supreme Court appointments on the Second Amendment. Remember these three are the ones that said it's not an individual right and one more would have been disastrous. Think of this as you go to the polls in November.

    Next president will have major impact on direction of Supreme Court | WSLS 10
    Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    Spread the word - it's the American sheeple we need to convince.
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  4. #3
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    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.

  5. #4
    762
    762 is offline
    Senior Member Array 762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    720
    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.
    Let's Roll - Todd Beamer

    MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

  6. #5
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,842
    This is incorrect. All the justices agreed the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
    Care to elaborate?
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    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.


    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  8. #7
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Care to elaborate?
    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.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    This is incorrect. All the justices agreed the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
    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)."
    Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

  10. #9
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    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.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595

    +! for SD, this time

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    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.
    First, I personally think the title of this thread goes beyond the forum rules limit on political discussion.

    Second, SD hit the nail on the head. He and I are poles apart on lots of stuff but he hits a lot of home runs too.

    Third, The title appears to be a sarcastic comment suggesting that the three named judges are not sensible. I guess sensible is in the eye of the beholder. However, I make a point of paying attention to these people when they appear on television for one reason or another. I have a high regard for all of them--They sure as heck all had better GPAs than I did, went to far "better" schools, have had distinguished careers, survived grueling confirmation hearings.

    I am certain all of them want to uphold the US Constitution to the best of their individual ability, and they each have considerable ability. Calling the Justices names doesn't serve any purpose and is wrong.

    Do I have qualms about some decisions, of course. But I try to temper these with the understanding that we live in a complex society of 300 million competing individuals, and the public actions of everyone from the lowliest Civil Servant to the highest office holders are subject to public scrutiny. Some of that scrutiny will be over the top, some ridiculous, some on target.

    If you are a one issue voter, than the position a particular justice might take on your one issue can turn him/her into a dullard. But if you look at the big picture, the difficulty of interpreting law for the benefit of all 300 million of us, you see immediately the complexity of the job and the arduous nature of their task.

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    I am certain all of them want to uphold the US Constitution to the best of their individual ability, and they each have considerable ability.
    While I do agree with you that they each have considerable ability, I question what it means that "all of them want to uphold the US Constitution to the best of their ability".

    I believe the Constitution should be interpreted as written and as intended by our founding fathers, that it is not a 'living and breathing document'. While some of the justices believe as I do, some on the court believe it is a 'living and breathing document' and needs to 'evolve'.
    I wouldn't be surprised if deep down, one or two of the judges would rather the document be scrapped altogether. Why else would some of the justices cite foreign opinion, foreign law, domestic 'opinion' or 'growing consensus' in their decisions rather than the US Constitution exclusivley?
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  13. #12
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    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)."
    These are the very first words of Stevens' dissent.

    Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    First, I personally think the title of this thread goes beyond the forum rules limit on political discussion.

    Second, SD hit the nail on the head. He and I are poles apart on lots of stuff but he hits a lot of home runs too.

    Third, The title appears to be a sarcastic comment suggesting that the three named judges are not sensible. I guess sensible is in the eye of the beholder. However, I make a point of paying attention to these people when they appear on television for one reason or another. I have a high regard for all of them--They sure as heck all had better GPAs than I did, went to far "better" schools, have had distinguished careers, survived grueling confirmation hearings.

    I am certain all of them want to uphold the US Constitution to the best of their individual ability, and they each have considerable ability. Calling the Justices names doesn't serve any purpose and is wrong.

    Do I have qualms about some decisions, of course. But I try to temper these with the understanding that we live in a complex society of 300 million competing individuals, and the public actions of everyone from the lowliest Civil Servant to the highest office holders are subject to public scrutiny. Some of that scrutiny will be over the top, some ridiculous, some on target.

    If you are a one issue voter, than the position a particular justice might take on your one issue can turn him/her into a dullard. But if you look at the big picture, the difficulty of interpreting law for the benefit of all 300 million of us, you see immediately the complexity of the job and the arduous nature of their task.
    I did not mean the title to be sarcastic, in fact I took it directly from the source. As for being political, maybe. I posted it to give information for all concerned, whether you're going to vote for Obama, McCain or another. The appointment of judges in the future is extremely important. I am also not a one issue voter. This article dealt heavily with the 2A, which is important here. There are other areas that I could have listed, however, they didn't deal with the 2A or any firearm issues. If the Mods deem this inappropriate and remove it, I will take no offense. It's strictly informational in nature.
    Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    While I do agree with you that they each have considerable ability, I question what it means that "all of them want to uphold the US Constitution to the best of their ability".

    I believe the Constitution should be interpreted as written and as intended by our founding fathers, that it is not a 'living and breathing document'. While some of the justices believe as I do, some on the court believe it is a 'living and breathing document' and needs to 'evolve'.
    I wouldn't be surprised if deep down, one or two of the judges would rather the document be scrapped altogether. Why else would some of the justices cite foreign opinion, foreign law, domestic 'opinion' or 'growing consensus' in their decisions rather than the US Constitution exclusivley?
    I get so bored with this line of thinking. For instance, why does anyone think that the constitution can "be interpreted as written?" Why does anyone think that this means that the "as written" interpretation will somehow be different than the current "interpretation?" Exactly WHO do you think is going to "interpret" the document? Hint: It ain't gonna be Jefferson or Adams, or any one else from that crowd.

    I guess this means that the Constitution will be interpreted by folks from our time who have been raised in our time and who think in terms of our current society. Guess what - that means that the "interpretation" is going to actually be an interpretation and not common knowledge because we have to rediscover what they really meant. Which might not be what you think it was because YOU are "interpreting" the document too based on your own thinking which results from your own modern viewpoint and education (or lack of it like myself).

    As for the "evolution" theory, where exactly do you think all those "exceptions" to the 4th amendment came from? You know, all those little things that let the cops catch the bad guys without needing to follow the rules and get a warrant. No exception is written into the 4th amendment yet a lot of people who complain about how the constitution is being ruined by the "living document" theory seem to like all the ways that police can use to catch illegal immigrants, child predators, and drug dealers without needing to get a warrant.

    I would really like to see people think for themselves for once. And stop parroting nonsense just because you like the way the words sounded. There's a lot more to the constitution than words on paper.

  16. #15
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    First, I personally think the title of this thread goes beyond the forum rules limit on political discussion.
    Agreed. This smacks of political one-sidedness not directly related to our right to keep and bear arms. Indirectly, yes, but how many threads have been wrongfully closed if 'indirectly' was good enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    Why else would some of the justices cite foreign opinion, foreign law, domestic 'opinion' or 'growing consensus' in their decisions rather than the US Constitution exclusivley?
    Because our law is based on Common Law, which did not begin in the United States, and there isn't precedence in the United States legal history for every conceivable argument that would appear before courts. I, personally, find "precedence" and other aspects of Common Law offensive, because it implies judges/justices are unable to come up with intelligible opinions on their own and that previous opinions are always correct ones, but that's a bit off-topic for this discussion.


    -B

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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. NRAILA -- Breyer Fires Warning Shot Across Second Amendment’s Bow
    By ccw9mm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 18th, 2010, 11:10 AM
  2. Souter to Retire From Supreme Court
    By miklcolt45 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2009, 04:22 PM
  3. Justice Ginsburg Has Surgery for Cancer
    By Rock and Glock in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: February 6th, 2009, 08:41 PM
  4. Guns And Judges
    By ronwill in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 15th, 2008, 11:31 AM

Search tags for this page

breyer controversial cases

,

souter and breyer

Click on a term to search for related topics.