Will Bush Appoint 2nd Amend. Supreme Court Justices?


February 7, 2004, 08:21 AM
If Bush is re-elected, what are the odds he's going to appoint a Supreme Court Justice favorable to our right to own arms?

Let's ignore the other issues the justice might vote for.

I would like to see some good evidence.

I ask this question cause I honestly don't know anymore. I always assumed he was more likely, but perhaps not. One of his appointees to an apellate court turned us down. Who is he looking at/likely to appoint, and what's their stance on our cause?


If you enjoyed reading about "Will Bush Appoint 2nd Amend. Supreme Court Justices?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
February 7, 2004, 08:52 AM
I think that he would have appointed several "strict constructionist"
justices to the bench, at least 2-3 by now if it wasn't for the illegal filibuster threat of benevolent "progressives" like Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer and Lautenburg, but their time is about to be up if the Dems lose 4-5 more seats in the Senate by November. If that happens and George Bush is reelected; I'm sure that cases pertaining to the 2nd Amendment and other "hot button" social issues will be reviewed.

I know that in my home state of Georgia Zell Miller's replacement will probably be a Republican. The Dems can't even find anyone willing to run for the seat, whereas the Republicans have about four or five solid, well respected candidates ready to go and to top it off Zell Miller will be campaigning for Bush.

What a crazy world we live in.

The Democratic political ship is going down but a lot of them are saying "steady as she goes" by continuing their liberal, whining and irrational hatred of George Bush.

February 7, 2004, 09:48 AM
I think it would be neat for George Bush to appoint strict constructionist judges. Then the Supreme Court could overturn all the unconstitutional laws that George Bush has signed (CFR, Patriot Act), and the Clinton gun ban which he wishes to renew.

February 7, 2004, 10:40 AM
Bush? Appoint pro-2A justices? Riiiiight. :rolleyes: Bush appointed Reggie Walton - the same one that ruled DC residents had no individual right to keep and bear arms, because they aren't a state and RKBA is supposedly a state right to arm militias. Bush is just like the rest of those losers.

Gary H
February 7, 2004, 11:31 AM
Where do you find judges that support the 2A and believe that "illegal alien" means "legal alien?" Bush is no friend.. and he is no conservative. He goes whatever way that will get him a few votes.

February 7, 2004, 11:51 AM
Gotta be a trick question.

Puhleeze tell me what is in Bush's background that leads one to think (dream) he would appoint constitutionally constrained judges?

--Supports Patriot Act and its siblings. Thinks there are no problems and will demonize any one or group that dare challenge its provisions.
--Lobbied for the Medicare drug act for which there is not one shred of constitutional support.
--Supports amnesty for illegal aliens entering this coutry. Hinders the appropriate executive branch agencies from enforcing immigration laws. He has singlehanded doubled the number of illegal aliens entering the US hoping for amnesty.
--Supports reinstitution of the AWB.

And my personal favorite:

--He signed the Campaign Finance Control Act after demanding certain provisions be included. Not one of his demands were met. He knew the bill was constitutionally challenged. He signed the legislation in any case counting on the supreme court to fix it.

Bush has consistently and repeatedly demonstrated his view of the Bill of Rights being a pile of poker chips which he can use in his political gamesmanship. He demonstrates no regard for the constitution. He demonstrates no regard for the bill of rights. He has demonstrated utter contempt for thoroughly American concepts like freedom of political speech.

Bush needs to be kept away from supreme court nominations. He simply can not be trusted based on what he has done over the last 3 years. I originally had high hopes for the guy, but now I consider him to be a damaging domestically as Clinton was.

February 7, 2004, 01:28 PM
The key phrase is:

If Bush is re-elected...

I'm not holding my breath.
In my opinion, he'll be a one-termer like his daddy.

February 7, 2004, 01:41 PM
no matter how slim the chances that W. Bush will appoint strict constitutionalist judges, the chance that he will appoint one is 100% higher than the chance john kerry or any democrat will appoint one

February 7, 2004, 02:41 PM
Absolutely right! You'll get more radical leftists like Ginsberg if you vote for Kerry. Some of the tone some of the people have here it would almost be funny if Kerry did get elected. Then I could say I told you so when his appointments gut the Constitution -- but that would be like laughing at fools on a sinking ship who accidentely ruin the pump, that is, if I'm on the boat too.

February 7, 2004, 03:07 PM
face it folks GWB is the lesser of the evils. kerry is a radical liberal. he will kills this countries army and defense contracts and further the fleecing of america and support nafta. increase the trade deficits. the list can go on. what has he done in senate anything worth while? sure he supports the 2nd ammendment FOR HUNTING!:what: kiss any AWB sunset good bye with him and forget getting rid of frivolous lawsuits. he is a democrat slash communist lapdog.

as far as GWB appointing 2nd Amend supreme court justices. it would be nice but I would not hold my breath. it could always be worse.

February 7, 2004, 03:13 PM
In somewhere around two decades in the Senate, John Kerry hasn't done much noteworthy. It is interesting to note that he is rated as more liberal/leftist than fellow Mass. Senator Ted Kennedy by groups that do such ratings.

Sen Kerry HAS voted against just about every major military weapon system that has come down the pipe during his time in the Senate. This includes the M1 Abrams, M2/3 Bradley, Ah-64 Apache, F-15, F-16, Stealth bomber, B-1...plus the Pershing and MX missiles. If John Kerry had his way, at best the Cold War would still be going on, at worst, we might have already lost it. To say nothing of fighting the current war.

February 7, 2004, 06:49 PM
I think that he would have appointed several "strict constructionist"
Why? Have any of his nominees been strict constructionists?

Thanks Tempest, I'd forgotten the name of Reggie Walton, that's the sort of stuff I'm looking for, but none I need more evidence than just that.

Let's ignore the other issues the justice might vote for.
Please stay on topic. Illegal immigration is irrelevent to this post.

Actually I'm very serious, i want to know what evidence there is for or against the belief that he would elect a supreme court justice favorable to the 2nd amendment. Re: AWB I'm convinced that Bush took that position for very, very good political reasons:
1. if he promises to veto it Congress can pass renewal on hopes he won't sign it,
2. at that point the political pressure to do so would be greater.
3. If, instead he promises to sign it, it's smaller on the radar if it gets killed in Congress, no one has to take the heat for it.
Bush needs to be kept away from supreme court nominations.
I need more evidence than that. I know he's not 100%, or even 90% but I also know he isn't as bad as Clinton. Why? PATRIOT got through, but to date he's not been wielding it like a club. If Clinton got PATRIOT he'd have several gun owners dead or in jail.

RocketMan: Off topic. Evaluate the truth of the statment: "If Bush is re-elected, then he will appoint pro 2A Justices" Whether he is, or is not elected has no bearing on whether or not that statement is true.

BSR: I'm not willing to take that as a given.
Spartacus: They're Socialists, I agree, but that's not the question.
MrApathy: The questions is not whether he is the lesser of two evils, if you think he won't then offer me evidence.
Langenator: Please stay on topic.


February 7, 2004, 07:00 PM

I have long since given up on judging politicians on the basis of what they say. I don't care about their "character" or belief system or family pedigree.

I have one, ond only one, simple minded way to judge politicians. I judge them on the basis of what they DO.

On the basis of what Bush has done domestically I can only draw the conclusion that he will not appoint constitutionally constrained justices.

I say this fully convinced that if arbitrary tyranny is ever imposed in the US it will come through the door of the judiciary. I offer the Mass. supreme court's dictation to the legislature as evidence of what it could look like.

Standing Wolf
February 7, 2004, 08:49 PM
I can't tell the Republicrats from the Democans even with a score card.

Brett Bellmore
February 7, 2004, 09:04 PM
Maybe by accident. Sad thing is, I'm sure none of the Democrats would even do it by mistake.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will Bush Appoint 2nd Amend. Supreme Court Justices?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!