Bush Victory - Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rebar

member
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
1,867
It seems pretty certain that Bush is going to win. But Bush is only lukewarm on our issue, the RKBA.

How can we translate a win for Bush to a win for us? Other elections certainly, the more RKBA candidates that win in the House and Senate, the better for us.

But I think we've been looking too much at elected offices, and not nearly enough at judges, which in many ways are far more important then the politicians, who come and go and who can "grow" in office.

To this end, I think the primary thrust of the RKBA community should be:

1) Identify a Supreme Court elegible juror who is relatively young, in good health, and soildly RKBA.

2) Throw the entire weight of the RKBA community behind this person, to get Bush to nominate and the Senate to confirm them.

If we can do that, then we've would have really scored a major victory for our rights.

So, anyone who's up on judges and who would make a good candidate?
 
Judicial nominees are generated by senators. The president goes to appropriate senators for district court nominees. Presidents also consult key senators for SCOTUS nominees.

If we want to influence the decision process the appropriate senator will have to owe his or her job to the RKBA community. If the senator is anti-second amendment you're outta luck.

Most likely the president will go to bell cow spinelessrepublicans for advice. He will consult Warner of VA, Hatch of Utah, and that worthless goober out of Indiana. Graham of SC won't get a call. Neither will Craig of Idaho. Top tier senators in the spinelessrepublican party are mushy when it comes to RKBA.

Then there is the problem with Bush himself. The man himself has exhibited a startling lack of concern with either constitution restraint or conservative principals. Given his history, what makes anyone think he will do the right thing?
 
This is where we come in. If the RKBA community, the NRA, GOA, I mean everyone really really push for a nominee, we'll have a much better chance of getting someone good, then if we did nothing.
 
I think our best bet would be to support jurors that believe in sticking with the original intent of the constitution, rather than reintrpreting it to suit current political trends.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to reintrpret the Constitution. They are supposed to ensure that it is followed, and if congress feels that it needs changed to how times have changed since it was written, then they need to try and ammend the constitution, not enact unconstitutional laws and hope the courts don't strike them down.

We need justices that will protect all our rights by upholding the constitution and not let it be whittled away with laws they feel don't infringe upon it too much.
 
I think our best bet would be to support jurors that believe in sticking with the original intent of the constitution, rather than reintrpreting it to suit current political trends.
Click to expand...

How are we supposed to do that with our current jury system?

I've believed for a long time that we should have professional jurors. They'd server for one or two years, draw a living wage salary, and as part of the job would receive censored news that didn't contain any mention of any crimes they might be trying. Part of the hiring process would be some kind of intelligence/common-sense test, maybe some basic law. Also make them swear to uphold the Constitution first, the law second, the judges rulings third.
 
Those judges can turn into rogues once they get the unlimited tenure. Look at Souter, the woman from AZ, etc. :uhoh:
 
Other considerations/possibilities aside and that might really be saying something, one can never really tell hopw an appointee will or might act, until they are in place, and the issue comes before them.

Once they are there, nominated to the court, and confirmed by The Senate, they are there for life, no parole, no time off for good or bad behavoir.
 
I think the USSC judge issue is the most important in this election. If you think Kerry with Schumer,Kennedy, Clinton and like will appoint a judge that believe in the individual right or standard model for the 2nd amendment you have not watched these guys in any of the confirmation hearings these past 4 years. Did you watch Kennedy in the Aschroft confirmation hearings. He slobbered all over himself about Ascroft belief in the "Resurection theory of the 2nd amemdment" that he believe it meant citizens have a right to take up arms aganist the government. He pointed his pudgy hands at himself and said " Me a tyrrant" Schumer has been pushing the idea that all nominees should have to answer how they will rule on the 2nd amendment in future cases. Believe me these people have a plan and for us it is not good. I know alot of people are up in arms about the Patriot Act but gee wiz I'm not willing to have Judges put on the USSC that will not protect the second while the Patriot is just an act of congress and still has the USSC to knock parts of it down.:cuss:
 
Preacherman:

How about Judge Cummings, I believe his name was, the District Court Judge in Texas, who ruled Lautenberg unconstitutional in the first place.
 
Then there is the problem with Bush himself. The man himself has exhibited a startling lack of concern with either constitution restraint or conservative principals. Given his history, what makes anyone think he will do the right thing?
Click to expand...

The GOP in general, considering who really runs it, is conservative in an economic or business/investment/capitalism/wealth/class sense. They only entertain social and constitutional conservatives to have a broader voting base. Bush is a pretty strong candidate for GOP priorities, but constitutional conservatives would have some complaints.

Economic conservatism and social conservatism coexist or merge much more easily than with philosophies guided by constitutional constraint, independent of business interests. The influence of the Christian agenda is now so prominent in the GOP that one could argue that the constitutional conservatives are the true right wing and real conscience of the party regarding essential government business.
 
Interesting to note that some judges are pegged as "activist" as a pejorative merely for failing to rule in a popular way. What they are really doing in many cases is adhering to strict readings of the existing Constitution and legal precedents. That is their job, in my opinion. Regardless of frustration, a pejorative or lack of respect might not apply.

It is interesting to note Souter being referred to in a negative manner, when he is one of the more strict justices, unwilling to be creative in Court rulings. That is at least my understanding.

I believe that a Justice willing to push the envelope would also be willing to rationalize why certain types of cases should be avoided on technicalities, the 2nd Amendment being a prime example. A Justice like a Souter or a Thomas would be more strict, reliable, and predictable.
 
So, anyone who's up on judges and who would make a good candidate?
Click to expand...

I couldn't give a name, but any judge that would interpret the ORIGINAL intent of the framers of the Constitution, would make a good candidate. There was nothing about "hunting","sporting purposes" or "commerce" in the Second Amendment. How hard is that to understand?

.......unless there is some other motive................:what:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top