frankie_the_yankee
Member
At one time in the past, the only legitimate judicial philosophy was something like what we term today as "originalism". That is, that judges should apply the law (or the Constitution) to cases according to their best good faith determination of the intent of the people who wrote and passed/ratified the law.
Starting sometime around the 1930's with some judges appointed by Roosevelt, judges began to let their ideological bent influence their rulings and opinions. Hence judges began to be classified as "conservative" or "liberal" according to which political outlook they brought to the bench.
In the ensuing years this trend gained strength, leading to rulings that overturned long established principles of law on the basis of "emanations" and "penumbras", and even more recently, based of various elements of international law.
The bottom line is that beyond mere competence, the philosophical bent of judges, especially federal judges, is more important than ever.
With that in mind, I think it would be illuminating if we could review instances in recent history (say the last 25 years or so) where the federal courts have rendered opinions touching on 2A rights, see how the judges involved in these rulings voted, and see which president appointed them.
I know that the 5th circuit, led by Justice Sam Cummings, issued a major ruling some years back that while upholding the Lautenberg Amendment (no guns if you have a DV misdemeanor) otherwise favored an individual rights interpretation. And I am aware that the 9th Circuit has espoused the so-called "collective rights" theory in some of its rulings. And of course we are all aware of the DC Circuit rulings in the recent Parker/Heller case.
I totally lack the ability to research such a thing. But if someone could come up with a list of rulings where each voting justice is named along with their position (individual rights, collective rights) and the president who appointed them, I think it would tell us something about the importance of the upcoming presidential election.
I suspect that if such an analysis were run we would see that the judges who favored an individual rights position on the 2A were overwhelmingly appointed by Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, while the judges who voted or opined in favor of the collective rights position were overwhelmingly appointed by Carter or Clinton.
But that is just my instinct. I would love to see the actual data. Any volunteers?
Starting sometime around the 1930's with some judges appointed by Roosevelt, judges began to let their ideological bent influence their rulings and opinions. Hence judges began to be classified as "conservative" or "liberal" according to which political outlook they brought to the bench.
In the ensuing years this trend gained strength, leading to rulings that overturned long established principles of law on the basis of "emanations" and "penumbras", and even more recently, based of various elements of international law.
The bottom line is that beyond mere competence, the philosophical bent of judges, especially federal judges, is more important than ever.
With that in mind, I think it would be illuminating if we could review instances in recent history (say the last 25 years or so) where the federal courts have rendered opinions touching on 2A rights, see how the judges involved in these rulings voted, and see which president appointed them.
I know that the 5th circuit, led by Justice Sam Cummings, issued a major ruling some years back that while upholding the Lautenberg Amendment (no guns if you have a DV misdemeanor) otherwise favored an individual rights interpretation. And I am aware that the 9th Circuit has espoused the so-called "collective rights" theory in some of its rulings. And of course we are all aware of the DC Circuit rulings in the recent Parker/Heller case.
I totally lack the ability to research such a thing. But if someone could come up with a list of rulings where each voting justice is named along with their position (individual rights, collective rights) and the president who appointed them, I think it would tell us something about the importance of the upcoming presidential election.
I suspect that if such an analysis were run we would see that the judges who favored an individual rights position on the 2A were overwhelmingly appointed by Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, while the judges who voted or opined in favor of the collective rights position were overwhelmingly appointed by Carter or Clinton.
But that is just my instinct. I would love to see the actual data. Any volunteers?
