Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Sandy Frohman is a pro Second Amendment attorney and the immediate past President of the NRA. Her "On Target" commentary for the October 11, 2007, WorldNetDaily analyzes the effect on the Supreme Court if conservatives back third party candidates instead of voting Republican. The major consequence for gun owners would be loss of the Second Amendment through the appointment of liberal activist justices. Her analysis seems obvious to me but I've seen a few other people in this forum and elsewhere declare that they will vote for either a third party candidate or (incredibly) for Hillary Clinton. Are gun owners still caught up in the notion of "let's send them a message" even when it's suicidal or is there a flaw in such obvious reasoning by a knowledgable person?
3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment?
Some conservative leaders are saying they might back a third-party candidate if the GOP nominee is not pro-life. While the principles and values underlying their point of view are understandable, there are serious unintended consequences to such action. Voting for a third party in 2008 could cost conservatives the Supreme Court, and with it the Second Amendment.
If conservatives vote for a third party, it will give the Democratic nominee the votes needed to win. It's a tough time for Republicans, and there aren't any votes to spare to keep Hillary Clinton from taking the Oval Office.
One thing the Democratic presidential candidates have in common is what sort of judges they will appoint to the Supreme Court. Not only did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vote against Justice Alito (who was confirmed 58-42), they also voted against Chief Justice Roberts (who was overwhelmingly confirmed 78-22).
Even though the majority of their fellow Democrats supported Roberts, Sens. Clinton and Obama opposed him. That's because Clinton and Obama are committed to appointing judges that satisfy the leftist base of the Democratic Party. Given the liberal activist judges Clinton or Obama would appoint, you can count on those judges being anti-Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court teeters on a knife's edge right now, with moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote in every 5-4 decision last year. With your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms likely to be heard by the high court soon, splitting from the GOP means losing the hope of building a textualist, originalist court – one that would uphold the text of the Second Amendment in accordance with its original meaning.
Anything that could cost us our Second Amendment rights is unacceptable. So gun owners must say "no" to a third-party bid.
As I write this, the D.C. gun ban case of District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly named Parker v. District of Columbia) has been offered to the Supreme Court. The question before the court is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
We're all waiting to see whether the high court takes the Heller case. If the court does hear it, it will probably be another 5-4 decision.
Every Republican candidate – including current front-runner Rudy Giuliani – has promised to appoint originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court. Every Democrat candidate – led by Hillary Clinton – has promised to appoint justices who would continue supporting a liberal social agenda. History shows that the activist agenda includes holding that the Second Amendment does not give you the individual right to own a firearm.
And remember that 99 percent of federal cases never make it to the Supreme Court. Most federal appeals are decided at the circuit court level. There are critical gun rights cases pending in federal courts across the country. Those cases could shape gun ownership in America forever. The next president will pick dozens of federal appeals court judges who will make final decisions in federal cases involving your gun rights.
This is also about more than just the Second Amendment. There are other social issues in play as well. All these issues stand or fall together. They're all at stake in the 2008 elections, because the next president's appointees will decide their fate.
Consider the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. The most liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, is also the oldest. He turns 88 next April. The second most liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a cancer survivor in her mid-70s. The third most liberal justice, David Hackett Souter, by all accounts hates life in D.C. A recent book on the Supreme Court, "The Nine" by Jeffery Toobin, says Justice Souter contemplated leaving the court after Bush v. Gore in 2000. These are likely the next justices to retire.
Whether vacancies on the Supreme Court are filled with liberal activist jurists or with conservative jurists faithful to the text of the Constitution depends in large part on the outcome of the presidential election.
It's ironic that many of the most outspoken critics of judicial activism are the same people threatening to promote a third-party candidate, risking the loss of the Supreme Court. It's also ironic that the issues these leaders are outspoken about are decided by the Supreme Court, not by the president.
Many of us have fought for years to restore a Supreme Court faithful to the text and meaning of the Constitution. It's almost within our grasp. It would be a tragedy of historic proportions to lose that fight now.
3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment?
Some conservative leaders are saying they might back a third-party candidate if the GOP nominee is not pro-life. While the principles and values underlying their point of view are understandable, there are serious unintended consequences to such action. Voting for a third party in 2008 could cost conservatives the Supreme Court, and with it the Second Amendment.
If conservatives vote for a third party, it will give the Democratic nominee the votes needed to win. It's a tough time for Republicans, and there aren't any votes to spare to keep Hillary Clinton from taking the Oval Office.
One thing the Democratic presidential candidates have in common is what sort of judges they will appoint to the Supreme Court. Not only did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vote against Justice Alito (who was confirmed 58-42), they also voted against Chief Justice Roberts (who was overwhelmingly confirmed 78-22).
Even though the majority of their fellow Democrats supported Roberts, Sens. Clinton and Obama opposed him. That's because Clinton and Obama are committed to appointing judges that satisfy the leftist base of the Democratic Party. Given the liberal activist judges Clinton or Obama would appoint, you can count on those judges being anti-Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court teeters on a knife's edge right now, with moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote in every 5-4 decision last year. With your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms likely to be heard by the high court soon, splitting from the GOP means losing the hope of building a textualist, originalist court – one that would uphold the text of the Second Amendment in accordance with its original meaning.
Anything that could cost us our Second Amendment rights is unacceptable. So gun owners must say "no" to a third-party bid.
As I write this, the D.C. gun ban case of District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly named Parker v. District of Columbia) has been offered to the Supreme Court. The question before the court is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
We're all waiting to see whether the high court takes the Heller case. If the court does hear it, it will probably be another 5-4 decision.
Every Republican candidate – including current front-runner Rudy Giuliani – has promised to appoint originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court. Every Democrat candidate – led by Hillary Clinton – has promised to appoint justices who would continue supporting a liberal social agenda. History shows that the activist agenda includes holding that the Second Amendment does not give you the individual right to own a firearm.
And remember that 99 percent of federal cases never make it to the Supreme Court. Most federal appeals are decided at the circuit court level. There are critical gun rights cases pending in federal courts across the country. Those cases could shape gun ownership in America forever. The next president will pick dozens of federal appeals court judges who will make final decisions in federal cases involving your gun rights.
This is also about more than just the Second Amendment. There are other social issues in play as well. All these issues stand or fall together. They're all at stake in the 2008 elections, because the next president's appointees will decide their fate.
Consider the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. The most liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, is also the oldest. He turns 88 next April. The second most liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a cancer survivor in her mid-70s. The third most liberal justice, David Hackett Souter, by all accounts hates life in D.C. A recent book on the Supreme Court, "The Nine" by Jeffery Toobin, says Justice Souter contemplated leaving the court after Bush v. Gore in 2000. These are likely the next justices to retire.
Whether vacancies on the Supreme Court are filled with liberal activist jurists or with conservative jurists faithful to the text of the Constitution depends in large part on the outcome of the presidential election.
It's ironic that many of the most outspoken critics of judicial activism are the same people threatening to promote a third-party candidate, risking the loss of the Supreme Court. It's also ironic that the issues these leaders are outspoken about are decided by the Supreme Court, not by the president.
Many of us have fought for years to restore a Supreme Court faithful to the text and meaning of the Constitution. It's almost within our grasp. It would be a tragedy of historic proportions to lose that fight now.
