Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,818 Posts
My measure on any supreme court justice, or any elected or appointed official in any capacity for that matter, is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in its original intent. I am a strong constitutionalist which makes me a classic liberal (as in most of the Founders), and I strongly believe in applying the original intent when "interpreting" these documents rather than attempting to mold them into contemporary socio-political thought. I believe that our willingness to re-interpret and out guess the Founders is one of the primary reasons for all of the problems we are having in modern America.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
My measure on any supreme court justice, or any elected or appointed official in any capacity for that matter, is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in its original intent. I am a strong constitutionalist which makes me a classic liberal (as in most of the Founders), and I strongly believe in applying the original intent when "interpreting" these documents rather than attempting to mold them into contemporary socio-political thought. I believe that our willingness to re-interpret and out guess the Founders is one of the primary reasons for all of the problems we are having in modern America.
Except for what I highlighted in blue text; I agree with you. I don't see our founders as liberal; at least not in the sense the way liberals are today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,818 Posts
Except for what I highlighted in blue text; I agree with you. I don't see our founders as liberal; at least not in the sense the way liberals are today.
I fear you misunderstood this. A classic liberal is what today would best be referred to as an ardent constitutionalist, which is how I would describe myself. Nowhere near what we see today as labeled liberals. Big difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
I figured as much but wanted to make it clear because a lot of people may not have understood the difference.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,757 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
I wouldn't bet the ranch on that sure thing. Lots of precedents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

As far as what should be, we are stuck here in the Land of Is. SCOTUS has traditionally stayed away from the gun stuff.
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of this, and will have to read up on the circumstances in which these things realistically happen. Even still, abortion isn't going anywhere anytime soon if at all (my opinion is that it's here to stay). You hit the nail on the head though. The abortion issue had it's day in court not to long ago; however, many firearm issues have not. SCOTUS as failed to do it's job by resolving these conflicts. They did their job already by resolving the abortion conflict. 2A rights should be at the forefront.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,071 Posts
To me, the nomination of Supreme Court Justices was the most important factor in the election results. We can only hope that he has more opportunities and can replace some current sitting liberal judges with conservative ones. If he wins a second term, that will most likely be the case. The next election may be even more important than this past one for that very reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
To me, the nomination of Supreme Court Justices was the most important factor in the election results. We can only hope that he has more opportunities and can replace some current sitting liberal judges with conservative ones. If he wins a second term, that will most likely be the case. The next election may be even more important than this past one for that very reason.
True enough. While the illegal immigration issue was the biggest and most pressing issue of our time IMHO because the very culture of America depends on a natural and gradual evolve and not an invasion causing a fast unnatural change. Only those who immigrate legally can appreciate America as it should be. The invaders frequently tend to hate America/Americans and feel they can take everything they can without giving anything back. I wish they would put that passion into making their own countries better but that's another subject altogether.

The Supreme Court pick is such a close second it's pretty much a tie really. The two go hand in hand. Without immigration law enforcement as it should be AND a Supreme Court who will side with anything leftist; our country as we know it would be gone in no more than two generations (30 years or less). Right now with a fair constitutional-minded judge coming on to the bench we have stalled that along with the enforcement of our border and immigration laws. One without the other would only be a half measure.

Obviously a constitutionalist judge will favor 2nd Amendment rights and not curtail them. I'd like to see it go a step further and see congress clarify the 2A rights to the point no state can diminish them more than the 2A says they can and a national reciprocity law that says anyone with a CCW permit can carry up to, oh, 11 rounds (10 +1) in any state. That will take some serious work and a lot of push back by the gun grabbers on the left unfortunately but it must be done. The ability to protect oneself and family must not be stopped at a state border. While they are busy doing this serious work; clarifying the anchor baby loophole to close it would be the best thing we could do for future generations. To so many here patriotism is a dirty word. With babies growing up with America hating illegal parents; we aren't doing the country any favors by allowing this to continue. Those negative attitudes get passed down to the kids and on and on. Again JMHO. YMMV. FWIW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
That's settled law that's not going to be walked back, so I do not know why. 2A isn't, so that's what should be focused on.
Maybe not as settled as you might think. There's a large swath across America who believe that right belongs to the states and not the feds. The feds might take it up again then make an adjustment on the previous ruling such as no abortion after 90 days or whatever they come up with. There's much more available scientific info available now that wasn't available when that ruling was made such as the baby being able to feel pain after 90 days as an example.

I don't have a dog in this hunt other than what I have been able to glean from what I've read (between the lines).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,546 Posts
I would like to see more about Hardiman's 2nd amendment thinking before getting enthusiastic about him. It is my understanding that Trump's sister (who is a judge, but NOT conservative) has endorsed Hardiman for the seat. I'm not sure that favorably disposes me towards him either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
673 Posts
judge William M. Skretny, who upheld the New York Safe Act was nominated by President George Bush Sr in 1990. Everyone assumed he was pro-2A because he was nominated by Bush Sr. The same could happen with Trump's nomination picks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,782 Posts
IMO whoever President Trump nominates, the democrats will obstruct as long as they can and we are in for a nasty fight. My fear is one of these judges that you never know what to expect from.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,094 Posts
judge William M. Skretny, who upheld the New York Safe Act was nominated by President George Bush Sr in 1990. Everyone assumed he was pro-2A because he was nominated by Bush Sr. The same could happen with Trump's nomination picks.
Bush was a closet Progressive so that does not surprise me. So far Trump has earned my trust and I sure hope he doesn't disappoint...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oklahoma1911

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,757 Posts
judge William M. Skretny, who upheld the New York Safe Act was nominated by President George Bush Sr in 1990. Everyone assumed he was pro-2A because he was nominated by Bush Sr. The same could happen with Trump's nomination picks.
Bush was pro-2A?... I did not know.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
$10 says he tweets the SC pick while the reporters are waiting in the press room
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEF

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
No matter who he nominates Tuesday night, it will send shock waves through the liberal media like nothing ever before.

It will also hamper, shut down and make irrelevant Nancy Pelocy's town hall meeting Tuesday night. Nobody will watch and nobody will care what she says or what she is doing as Trump's SC will capture all the air time.

All that aside, President Trump's SC Nominee will remain a nominee and never get confirmed with the present make-up of the Senate.

SC Justice appointment do not fall under Dingy Harry's Nuclear Option. 60 votes are still required to stop a Democrat filibuster and that ain't gunna happen.

There are only two way for Trumps nominee to get confirmed.

1) The Senate must make a rule change and forgo the 60 requirement. As the rules state now, that would require a 67 vote majority to adopt the rule change. That ain't gunna happen,
or Pence could declare the 60 vote rule unenforceable on constitutional grounds. If Pence were to do that, it would immediately go to a floor vote where only 51 votes would be needed to adopt the new rule.
Then the Republican could stop the filibuster with 51 votes, force a floor vote where Trump's nominee would only need 51 to confirm.

The problem with the above is, before Pence makes this move on Constitution grounds he has to be 100% sure that he has the support of all Republicans in the senate, cuz if they do not agree to this rule change, then Trump and America is screwed . With the likes of McCain, Graham, Paul and several other Never-Trumper RINO's in the Senate. Pence knows he and trump do not have the support.

The only other option is for a recess appointment by Trump. When the Senate officially goes into "recess" on Easter break, Trump can make a temporary Recess appointment which only last until the next legislative session.

So, from where I sit, McConnell and the RINO's in the Senate will not work to confirm any of Trump's SC nominees and we will be stuck with eight (8) SC Justices until the midterm is 2018 if and only if the Republicans can get a 60 member majority.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
The republicans have avoided changing the rules because they know they won't be the majority forever. It ebbs and flows from year to year and decade to decade. Since they stonewalled President Obama's pick and refused to give him a hearing the precedent is set and the dems will probably do the same. I can't remember if the POTUS can use a recess apt to apt SCOTUS? If so it would probably be temporary. Remember, Trump is the definition of a 'rino' as he was a Dem for virtually his entire life, has virtually no conservative values and has little support from Reps in general. Still, if he chooses a candidate with conservative bonafides the party will almost certainly back him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oklahoma1911
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top