Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jan 31, 2017.
Home Run pick!
I'm asking myself he same question: "Huh?". My NM relatives have all moved to other states and I have not been there in a long time but I OCed in NM myself many times. Early onset Althsimer's?
The Gorsuch children and mine attend the same school. Well one does, his elder daughter left due to some illness. I can't say that I know him well but we have mutual friends, some of whom share my ideological worldview and some of whom are rather more typical Boulderites. While he is conservative and apparently of an originalist bent when it comes to jurisprudence, he is widely regarded as thoughtful and guarded in displaying an ideological bias, which should help him in confirmation.
Given that Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Schumer all voted for him in his 2006 confirmation, and that if the Dems trigger a rule change for the 'nuclear option' it could make the next pick, likely a liberal justice replacement, impossible to block, Dems should confirm, albeit after a hissy-fit. He is a very clever choice by the Trump administration, putting Dems in a very tricky spot. With Schumer having approved him in 2006, if they simply try to block as a Garland tit-for-tat, it helps in the 2018 mid-terms to show that at risk Dems are useless obstructionists and yet they cannot block him indefinitely because McConnell can trigger a rule change.
Meanwhile, I feel very sorry for this man whose every moment of life, every trial (rimshot!) and tribulation, every indiscretion, and every personal detail is about to be served up for the ghoulish pleasure of a media hell-bent on damning him.
The reality is we need someone who will protect the Constitution as a whole. Not just the 2nd Amendment. Argue all you want that the 2nd is the most important amendment, as it protects our other rights from a tyrannical government. I won't argue against you. But there are many other cases heard that can erode freedoms just as fast as 2A cases. Give me an original textualist anyday over a strictly staunch 2A supporting Justice.
Taking the long-view, the new Pro-RKBA criteria seems to be originalist, young, and healthy.
I'm thrilled! Seems to be what we want!
Not to take away from Gorsuch, but I am personally okay with any of the ones I researched on the list, the thought of what Hillary absolutely 100% would have done, please dont forget that. Not that "Anything Else" is normally a good standard, but here we have what appears to be a Great pick....AND better than "Anything" hillary would have done! - Seriously, take a minute to think about what our position so easily could have been, then say a little "thank you" to the man upstairs!
Maddow was even attacking him mother last night. I'm sure the background of all potential nominees was well researched by the fake news prior to last night.
I'm pleased. Very good selection ... hopefully the first of several.
If Maddow's own Mom was pro gun or pro life, Rachel would even be attacking her!
She is a leftist ideologue and nothing is ever going to change that.
From what I have read about the nominee, I believe he will interpret the 2nd amendment as it was originally intended.
Seems a good choice.
While he hasn't had many publicized 2A decisions, the fact that he is an originalist when interpreting the constitution bodes well for our freedom. While there were other possible nominees with more proven pro-2A records, the president had to focus on the protection of the constitution as a whole, not just the second amendment.
Saw on Fox that Trump had a meeting in the white house of supporters and Businessmen. The subject was Gorsuch and Wayne LaPierre was standing next to Trump. Wayne had a big, you know what eating grin on his face, so I'll take that as a GOOD SIGN!
Well, there's certainly the political/philosophical theory that the RKBA is the *best* litmus test there is for determining a person's governing tendencies. Those who would put a gun in another's hand tend to given them free exercise in many other areas, as well. On the contrary, many of those who espouse free speech seem to be among the most restrictive of it and all other freedoms at this time. The ability of the gun itself to drive policy through threat of resistance is a minor point (but a real one)
That, at least, is why I would have liked to have seen a judge with more RKBA bonafides. Unlike other areas of the constitution that may be just as important, there aren't literally a dozen cases pending that can determine whether we can go to a church of our choosing, or move to a state we desire, or pass our property to our children, or possess property. Cases just as fundamental to gun rights are stacking up by the bushel.
Having said that, I am well aware of difficult this request is. Gun law cases seem to be subject to terrible selection bias; contentious cases simply don't occur in areas where judges tend to be more fair, because the horrible laws plaguing ban states simply don't exist. Especially when state preemption laws are in effect and make it impossible for an antigun population center to enact such laws. On the contrary, ban-state courts tend to be just as anti-gun as the electorate that put forward the government that passed the bans. So there's never any conflict, not until you get way up to the upper atmosphere of SCOTUS ostensibly looking at all things simultaneously through the lens of the constitution.
Add to that bias the state of legal education --practically every big-name institution is nearly or actually criminal in its dedication to indoctrination, and the majority of civics-minded graduates hail from extremely leftist backgrounds-- and you can see how difficult it is to find a pro-gun judge who's also had the opportunity to rule on gun cases. So, the best we can do is try to infer from his other cases and lack of gun law precedent, that he would approach the issue logically (or even favorably) and likely came from an area without restrictive gun laws.
I have to disagree with the above, for two reasons. First of all the First Amendment does not speak of a "right to worship" (picking what church to go to), but rather to the "exercise of religion", i.e. to live one's religion. And there have been quite a few cases on this point, two of which (Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor) Gorsuch ruled on. The cases where sexual identity activists deliberately sought out Christian bakers and florists to request services for their same-sex weddings and then sued them when the bakers and florists said they were perfectly happy to sell baked goods or flowers to the people but could not in good conscience lend their talents to an event forbidden by their religion, have pretty much all been decided in the lower courts in favor of the activists. I don't think any have yet reached the Supreme Court. Further, the bureaucrats in the O administration also decided that "gender identity" is protected by sex discrimination laws and ordered schools all over the country to allow students claiming to be "transgender" to share bathrooms, changing facilities and showers with students of the opposite biological sex. Some states filed a lawsuit to put a hold on this and I believe they got the hold but the issue has also not reached the Supreme Court.
You can't possibly in good conscience equate the restrictions experienced by either religious persons or homosexuals in our nation to the kind of repression experienced by a full third of the population where it concerns guns.
-Shall issue carry permits (denial of civil rights)
-RKBA absolutism (machinegun ban & 'sporting purposes' clauses)
-NFA regulatory overreach (tech branch rulings)
-NFA administrative malfeasance (wait times)
-ITAR regulatory overreach (abusive license fees & oversight)
-Assault weapon bans (arbitrary & capricious laws & enforcement)
-Broad class bans, such as semi-autos or microstamping requirements (denial of civil rights)
-Duty to notify & police searches (fourth/fifth/first amendment violations)
-Stand your ground (personal right to unconditional self defense)
-Background checks (invasion of privacy as well as interference in commerce)
-Safe passage (violation of interstate commerce)
-Possession inside/outside the home (erosion of Heller and its potential expansion)
-Punitive taxation, licensing, training fees (prohibitory tax on a right)
-Blanket bans on heavy metals (prohibitory burden on a right)
-The standard by which the RKBA is to be examined where infringements are concerned (strict scrutiny)
-And I am certain to be forgetting a handful of others
There's simply a ton of facets to 'the gun issue,' and each of them has a case or two log-jammed against either a district or the supreme court at this time. Something's gotta give. It's worth remembering that Heller came about as DC sought to deal a death-blow to the RKBA, by banning outright all firearms most suitable for self-defense. That was a bridge too far for the court, but only barely. Scalia knew this, and therefore he (and Thomas I would imagine) endeavored to keep less severe cases of infringement from coming before the court, where they were sure to be upheld by Kennedy. This stalling tactic kept bad precedent off the books, but also allowed regions of the US to erode or ignore outright the Heller ruling's implications.
Considering that each of these facets carry implications far beyond firearms issues (e.g. regulatory overreach via Chevron Deference) I would argue that the neglect of this area of law is one of if not the primary reason for so much uncertainty about the future of our system of government. If it can be settled for the time being, everyone's way forward in this country becomes a lot clearer. For the last several decades, the court's focus has been on staking out new freedoms, and new authorities, and striking out into new areas of law, all the while allowing the very basis established in our founding documents to decay.
The main difference is that they've been attacking gun rights for a longer period of time, attacking religious conviction is much more recent, and they are just getting warmed up. If Hillary, who actually said in so many words that "we" (= she and her fellow members of the superior elite) "have to change longstanding religious beliefs" (in a speech about abortion but don't imagine for a moment it would stop there) had been elected the next step would have been censoring sermons and bowlderizing the Bible, obviously if biology is now ignored in favor of "feelings" it cannot be allowed to say "male and female created He them", much less prohibit "lying with a man as with a woman", and then of course they would proceed to make it illegal for clergy to refuse to perform same-sex weddings.
I'm waiting to see what the SAF says about him, although it's probably hard to find someone better?
I did hear the SAF on a podcast recently - they stated they have cases lined up and ready to go, but they're waiting for a second SCOTUS to be seated before they proceed with certain cases.
Seems if they proceed now (after only one Constitutionalist has been seated), SCOTUS may not take the case, thus letting lower court rulings stand (and Obama has stacked the lower courts).
If they wait for a second justice friendly to gun owners to be seated, then SCOTUS will probably agree to hear the cases they have in the bullpen.
Some insiders also think the Dems may not fight this judge so much, opting to fight it out on the next one which may be replacing a liberal justice.
I guess it goes with out saying.....only if they are in our favor.
As in, not a pick from the 9thCA.
I would strongly disagree. In fact, the US was founded largely to avoid having governments impose religious rules. The 1st Amendment was first for a reason . . .
And if ~10% of the population is prevented from marrying (or being in the military, or having consensual sex in private, etc.) that is a pretty significant imposition.
But they aren't, so your imposition is mostly hypothetical. However, a full third of Americans cannot access concealed carry or the most effective weaponry, right now.
Also, fwiw, both the colonies & early US were supportive of religious blocs between states so long as citizens weren't forced to join or support a side and didn't feud, which why the 1st amendment stipulates the US Congress, and not the states. But obviously that is no longer how we operate today since states have become blurred & weakened.
Maybe if they are the two who wrote Peruta...
Both have been attacked plenty; in fact, religious liberty is an even older issue than gun control, going back past the founding. The old solution was to let each state favor, but not mandate, a faith, and let the people congregate accordingly. That's still the case, only one of the faiths is now the worship of The State, which by definition cannot play nice with the competition, politically. Again, I'll say most of your (valid) concerns are still theoretical; they warrant close watch, but gun issues in the here & now are a more pressing concern.
Plus, wins on gun freedom will bleed over into these other areas via precedent.
He's a great pick because no one has dirt on him. The media cant savagely attack him like they have everyone else.
But that won't stop them from trying.
Separate names with a comma.