Today’s Second Amendment opinion was decided by a 5-4 margin.
When future monumental Constitutional issues come before the Court, we cannot afford to have one or more Obama appointees on that bench.
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
95 Responses to “Supreme Court ruling and our next election”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
For those thinking about sitting this election out or voting for someone who can’t possibly win as a “protest” vote, the appointments to the Supreme Court should tell you who to vote for and why!!! Get some liberal judge (aka “BO” appointee) and your rights will slowly erode away. Remember these are LIFETIME appointments!!!!
An Al Gore Or John Kerry Supreme court would have upheld this gun ban and thus stripped us of our second ammendment rights. An Obama Supreme court will reverse this decision.
Yeah, we can’t afford to have any McCain nominees on that bench either, because he’ll have to pick ones that would pass the Democrat controlled Senate.
We’re screwed either way.
#3 - you beat me to the punch. Can we afford to have McCain nominees on the court?
McCain is taking aim at Obama’s stance on gun control.
#3 I would rather see the court with 1 or 2 shy of 9 than have all 9 with 2 more liberal-comie-marxist-pinko-wackjob-america haters like Ginsberg or Stevens. It will have to be a case of hanging tough and fililbustering everything to keep the bad (see above) out and get the good in. If it means “stopping the business of the people” so be it; the less our gov’t does the better.
It is ridiculous to suggest that there would be no difference between McCain and Obama appointees. And those McCain appointees confirmed would be more conservative than Obama’s, even if McCain settles for less conservative appointees than he would otherwise like.
And if this isn’t a reason for gun ownership, I don’t know what is!
Crap, link didn’t work:
http://kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695&article=3875223
but…but…you guys don’t get it! We have to send a message to the RINOS NOW! If we elect the backstabbing slimy McPain, we’re no better off than if Obama was in office! They’re indistinguishable! Halliburton!
I would rather take a chance on a McCain SC Nominee than give up all hope with an Obama SC nominee.
The nomination process did what it is intended to do: reduce the wide field of candidates to one. No one candidate is perfect; even Ronald Reagan (cue angelic chorus) had his flaws. The objective of the political system we have is to choose the persons on whom most people can agree for the various elected offices. McCain came out the victor in this process for the Republicans; O’Bama, at least presumptively, for the Democrats. That is the choice we have, like it or not.
By sitting out, not voting for McCain, or voting for someone else who doesn’t have a prayer (e.g., Barr), you are effectively voting for O’Bama. Is that what you really want.
Before you start in about “sending a message”, the place to vote for a Libertarian or other third-party is in a lower office. A third-party president would find it very difficult to get anything whatsoever done as he would have practically no leverage to apply to either of the dominant parties in Congress.
FYI: It is my understanding that Justice Kennedy was nominated by Reagon. I guess they can’t get it right everytime.
#13 canuk
Yep. The only two on the court nominated by a Democrat are Ginsburg & Breyer.
#13;
You’re correct but I think Scalia was also slipped in under Reagan. Kennedy was a very bad choice indeed and Reagan should have done better; but at least Scalia’s there.
Jimb - the message that might be inadvertently sent is that we want MORE liberal candidates. If the liberal one wins, the party is going to think that is what the people want. Since true conservatives are not going to get what they really want, isn’t it better to get a portion of what we want instead of nothing?
Wouldn’t it be nice if someone asked both candidates for a list of some of their potential nominees. Nominees they consider meet their own philosophies if they were president. I mean they tell us what they are going to do if elected, wouldn’t this fall under that category. Give us some examples or do they have something to hide or a hidden agenda.
I would like to see some concrete plans that O’Bama wants to implement. So far all we have from him are grandiose big-picture ideas with no clue how he might go about imlementing them.
Hey, I’d rather have McCain picking them than Obama.
What I was saying is that McCain makes such a big deal about “going across the aisle” to work with Democrats that he’ll bend over backwards to nominate justices that will meet their criteria.
So they’ll be leftists, but not as far left as Obama’s nominees.
We screwed not because of McCain, but because of all the idiots around the country electing Democrat Senators…including my fellow Coloradans, who will probably elect Udall over Schaffer in November.
Considering that two of the Four Horsemen were appointed by Republicans, both of them “centrists” who would be at home in the McCain wing of the party, I’d argue that we cannot afford one or more appointees to that bench from either candidate.
That said, the most likely court vacancies in the next term due to age, death, or retirement are probably Stevens and Ginsburg. The four conservatives and swing-vote Kennedy have more youth among them than their counterparts. So at most, we’re looking at a wash.
Really? Then tell me what the ideological difference is between David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
One was appointed by a “centrist” Republican like McCain. The other was appointed by Clinton. And there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two of them.
Phil_M,
They are not stating reasons to vote for McCain. They are coming up with excuses as to why THEY are voting for him.
Thinking people eventually get tired of being stabbed in the back.
The media annointed McCain as the Republican nominee during the primaries, but they will ignore him now and annoint Obama as president. McCain’s only chance is if here were to select Hillary as his VP (he’d lose some Republicans but gain more Democrats)
Any justices that would be replaced would be the left leaning ones, so at worst I think we would have a court that looks like we have today.
On the upside, the Republicans can now be the complainers and obstructionists that the Democrats have enjoyed being for the past 8 years.
The scariest thing about this is that it was a 5-4 vote, if the 4 dissenters had ever actually READ The Constitution they might have voted accordingly and it would be 9 Zip.
McCain’s not good enough!!! So let’s turn the House, Senate, and Presidency over the leftists and nutjobs.
/
We KNOW Obama will put a neo-marxist-revisionist on the SC. And his cabinet may be look like a who’s who of the American Commuinst Party, but to sit out and not vote McCain because he ain’t conservative enough?? Yeah that’ll learn ‘em! A 100% Neosoc government!
Could you prove yourselves to be any more stupid?
Like blowing up your house because you have roaches.
Man up and defend your country from the socialists!
Some of you sound like little kids screaming in the toy aisle at Wal-Mart because momma isn’t getting them what they want. Holding my nose for McCain 08!
Phil_M,
You leave out 3 things in your “centrist” argument.
1. Stevens was appointed by an UNELECTED Gerald Ford during a time of deep turmoil for Republicans. Today’s climate is not the same, you cannot compare the two.
2. Souter was appointed by GHWB, who also appointed Clarence Thomas. Are you seriously saying that Obama’s record would be 50/50 on appointments?
3. John McCain is more conservative than GHWB on almost every issue.
All elections are about choices presented, nothing more or less. This fall, there will be a choice between a very liberal candidate, a moderate/conservative candidate and wasting a vote in some sort of “protest”, hoping the country goes so far to the bottom that the bounce back will somehow be greater than the fall. Didn’t happen with Reagan yet people want to keep trying that model.
Well, the “lesser of two evils” theory resurfaces again. Whether to vote for “BO” and get a sure thing in the way of ultra left wing liberal everything or take your chances with McCain—you all decide!!!! My choice is with McCain, the lesser of two evils. So “hold your noses” otherwise your going to have to find a better way to hold onto your “pocketbook”!!!!!
I’ve said this before, but I’ll try again. If I vote for Sen McCain, he will turn around and claim that he has my mandate to do all the kooky stuff that he is noted for. Further, conservatives will have lost control of the Republican party for generations because he will have proved that the Rockefeller Republicans can win and that they do not need the conservative base. Therefore, for the good of the country and the party, I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain as I feel it would beget more McCain types in the future. Now, should Obama win the Presidency, I’m not taking the blame for that either because I’m not voting for him. I’m not falling for the scare tactics being employed by some on the near right about the lesser of two evils, etc. If the only choices we have are between a liberal Republican and a Socialist/Marxist, then that’s just the way it is, and further, that’s apparently the way most of the people in this country want it to be. Just look at our Governor, our liberated lady United States Senator, and tell me even the people of the State of Texas want conservatives. Apparently, they don’t, or they would do something about it.
No, should McCain not win, I suspect that a few years under the Messiah’s thumb might just bring a few chickens back home to the roost. Carter begat a 49 state landslide for Regan. Don’t blame me if I don’t vote for someone who kicks me in the groin every time I have an opinion expressed and actively seeks to disengage himself from the no-teeth, backwater, country Southern hicks like me that used to support the conservative Democrats in the 60 and the Republicans after that until now.
Reagan’s “landslide” did not undo all of the damage done by Jimmy Carter.
Now the next question. Can we use this to overturn some of the gun control legislation of the last 130 years?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
I’m holding out for a better firefighter. In the meantime, my house burns to the ground. Goooood!
You guys that want to essentially turn over the country to a socialist executive and legislative branch because the presidential candidate isn’t ideologically pure enough for you fascinate me. Faster’s right - it’s like burning down the house because you have roaches.
Wino, your reasons versus excuses theory is specious. I won’t be making any excuses whatsoever for my vote.
The damage Carter did to this country is still with us to some degree. The damage Obama/Pelosi will do is going to be worse by far.
I’ll vote to contain/limit the damage every time, if that’s the choice given to me.
Jimb, I concur. As I’ve pointed out before, it could very well be the lives of millions of Americans at stake if we elect Obama.
And not voting for McCain makes as much sense as chopping off your talliwacker because you have ED and it will only do 1/2 of what you’d like it to do. That would be plain stupid.
You cannot give the Dimwits a platform like the Presidency to spew their “ultra left wing liberal” ideas from. Coupled with control of Congress and they will impose things that will take a lifetime of elections to undo. And remember they will have the liberal media to help them. The cards are already stacked against us, not voting or protest voting will be “folding” in.
MORE HOT NEWS RULING FROM SCOTUS:
Supreme Court strikes down part of campaign finance law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080626/pl_nm/usa_politics_court_money_dc;_ylt=AlTTuvNvBoY.Y1lckEMwJH6s0NUE
I don’t know about y’all, but my opinions have grown and changed as I get older. In defense of some of the poorer choices Republican presidents have made, the justices simply may have shifted thought once they attained their highest appointment. I believe Kennedy teaches in Europe, and is lauded by the European judges. His ego is stroked extensively. If my goal were to be a supreme court justice, and I realized there were more conservatives winning president than liberals, I would lean conservative to attain my goal. Once I met my goal, I could unwrap my true belief.
So, to stop Obama and Pelosi, we completely abandon all conservative ideologies, principles, and aspirations, for the sake of possibly preventing short-term damage.
That’s like driving your car packed with explosives into your hypothetical burning house to put out the fire. Sure, the fire is out, but the amount of damage done is more than what would have happened had you not done anything at all.
You guys make me laugh… elect a RINO who will do nearly as much harm as Obama, and immensely more long-term harm to the GOP and conservatism in general. In addition, if McCain is elected, we’ll get even MORE RINO’s. Say hello to more “Ho’s and Snakes” in Austin!
I hope you never get roaches….
I hope you get a broader view.
I’ve seen plenty of broads. I kinda like the one I married.
“elect a RINO who will do nearly as much harm as Obama”
If you consider a nuke detonating in an American city as comparable to a nuke not detonating in an American city, then I guess you’ve made your point Wino.
Wino, I want to ensure we’re on the same page.
1. You really don’t believe it’s a possibility that terrorists would detonate a nuke in a US city, correct?
2. You don’t believe that there is any difference between how Obama would handle terrorists and how McCain would handle terrorists, correct?
3. You don’t believe there is any difference in how Obama and McCain would handle the threat of Iran completing nuclear devices and giving them to terrorists to use, correct?
I would just appreciate it if you would, point by point, make this clear, and your reasoning behind each. Thank you.
I guess there is one more point.
4. You don’t think a nuke being detonated on American soil would be a big deal, correct?
Thanks again.
I know woman are married to otherwise good men but who get drunk regularly and beat them up. Upon healing enough to be mobile, they return home again, promise to be a better wife, and await their next beating. Some think this is insane behavior and think they should just leave once and for all. Would not a vote for McCain, knowing of his policy flaws that will have me kicking the dog and throwing stuff at the TV when enacted, be just as insane as that woman who returns time after time to her drunken husband just to get another whipping?
The good news is that the Supreme Court has today affirmed by a slim 5 to 4 margin, that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The bad news is that only one vote prevented loss of our Second Amendment right to own firearms. Four Supreme Court Justices did not agree with this decision. They would have denied a Constitutional right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights if they had prevailed. November’s presidential election will decide who will be president for the next four years. However the choice of the next president can affect the makeup of the Supreme Court for the next thirty years. Right now there is barely a one vote margin between a government run by appointed judges vs. elected officials. Neither is doing a good job in many respects, but I prefer to at least have some choice. Federal judges are appointed for lifetime terms while the President and the Legislature must face the electorate every two, four or six years relative to the office.
Remember that when you cast your vote in November!
Rastus, it’s not a good analogy. This would be better. You own a double barrel 10 gauge shotgun.
There are two people who want to move into your house. One will not tolerate bullies. The other will attempt to negotiate with bullies and even allow one of them to have access to a 10 gauge shotgun in your neighborhood.
Which guy do you want to allow move into your house?
#44 Rastus
What you’re describing is the GOP Beater syndrome. Every four years, people with (R) after their name come around and promise not to side with the democrats every time, even though that’s exactly what they did for the previous 3.9 years. We call these people “RINO”s and oppose them every chance we get, until an election comes up, at which time the “faithful” vote for them because they do not have a (D) after their names.
What is happening here is the GOP S&M syndrome. Here, we have people who are intentionally subjecting themselves to a person with an (R) after his name who acts just like a RINO, but who doesn’t even bother to promise to stop, as in the GOPBS described above. The GOPSaM’s will vote for him anyway, because they get some type of satisfaction from it that most other people find very difficult to understand, and which they cannot adequately describe.
No, we don’t, and that’s a ridiculous analogy.
#44 rastus
By your analogy, she would leave a husband who she would have periodic fights with for someone who would beat her often.
Phil_M sez:
That’s the only logical reason I’ve seen given today not to vote for McCain.
But let’s look at it from the other direction. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a two vote cushion? McCain has stated he wants to nominate clones of Roberts and Alito. Some question his honesty on that. I don’t, but this I do know - Obama will most certainly nominate a Ginsberg clone.
#49 - By the analogy you refer to, the woman would leave her husband that she squabbles with to one that would take all of the blood from her body and give it to someone who “needs it more”.
WINO, you’re making analogies. I’d appreciate it if you would address my points in #42 & 43 so I can understand how you view that aspect of this election.
If there were to be a nuke detonated on US soil, would any other issue really matter after that?
#52 Big45
And where did you get the inside intelligence that this hypothetical will happen? Or is it that you are hoping that if Obama is elected it will happen? And, if that is so, are you certain that if McCain is elected it will not happen?
Last time I looked, the southern border was still wide open, so pardon me if I don’t attend to your strawman.
#51 jimb
ok. I can almost see that…
Rastus,
In Obama’s own words he would appoint more judges like ginsberg, breyer and souter. Are those the type of judges you want? The next president will have a chance to nominate at least one or 2 judges. That type of choice will resonate for 30 years.
Your wife beating comment is not even close to a good analogy. In fact it really goes over the line.
Wino
No one said anyone is abandoning conservative principles or ideologies. But to allow Obam to become president is they way to do that if you are so inclined.
McCain may not be perfect but of the candidates with a realistic chance of winning he comes closer than the other.
I would rather for someone who has more knowledge of fire fighting and would come closer to my philosophy of fighting fire and shares some of my same goals (like putting out the fire)than some one like obama who would just show up and yell “don’t worry change is coming”.
Big45,
What would you advocate if a nuke were detonated on US soil?
A nomination does not a confirmation make. McCain may actually nominate a good one, only to have him/her turned back by the Senate. Then, in a spirit of bipartisanship, will nominate someone acceptable to the dem controlled Senate, and guess what, another Souter or Breyer or Kennedy pops out. And then we are supposed to act surprised. While I see the Judges as the most important issue facing us longer term, and the war in the short term, I’m just not willing to trust him with the keys - he’s already messed us around too much.
Big45,
Which party held the presidency when planes were being flown into buildings? Jesus that kind of rhetoric burns me up. To say that if a democrat gets elected, the terrorists are going to be successful and pull of more attacks is just idiocy.
The terrorists will continue to try to inflict pain on us and might even be successful again. Our law enforcement, intelligence, and military will all constantly work to avoid this.
Claiming that if one party is elected, that future succesful attacks are imminent is just asinine and devisive.
#57 rastus
So you’d rather just cut to the chase and have O’Bama nominate a neobolshevik right off the bat?
Rastus I understand. We don’t want to trust McCain with the Judge choices, so we simply cannot vote for him. But, when we choose to mark a third candidates box, or not vote, we are putting into office a Marxist. How is not voting for McCain, going to save this country for my grandchildren? I cannot experiment with an idea to slap down and punish the republicans because they have failed us. They deserver punishment, but the future for my grandchildren is more important. Believe me, if we had a republican house and senate, I would not vote McCain. We don’t. Not only don’t we, but we are expected to loose seat after seat. We are going to be in a situation where we have no stops… unless it’s the president. Obama will have a fiefdom.
American woman,
What evidence do you have that Barack Obama is a Marxist. I hadn’t heard him campaigning on that position. Also, why are the Republicans, “…expected to loose (sp?) seat after seat.”? Could it possibly be because they have governed so incredibly bad?
Rastus,
So a nomination does not make a confirmation. Whose fault is that! Democrats in the Senate. With that said how would things be better with Obama making nominations?
Again, who would you rather be making the nominations
McCain or Obama
Please let us know
That sums it up nicely…
Again, I fear that a McCain election confirms the Rockefeller Republican theory that there is no need for a conservative side of the party, thus sending the conservatives into the political wilderness for 40 years with no place to go. On the other hand, a McCain loss might provide a wake-up call to get the party to return to its base. We could handle Carter for 4 years, and while the reprecussions of his presidency are still ringing around the world, the country had had enough when the next election came around. While I rationally believe that McCain would make better SCOTUS nominees, there is little basis to support that belief - in other words, I am not certain that he would do so. I do not trust him, and that is his fault, not mine. I’m just trying to look beyond the next four years, otherwise I fear we are doomed to become another France. That’s all I’m saying here.
62 - Unfortunately, a lot of likely Republicans have moved to the center. That’s a fact that many conservatives ignore to their own peril. There simply aren’t as many conservatives as there used to be. If conservatives stop voting for Republicans, the only wake-up call they’ll get is to move FURTHER left. If you want that, then help McCain lose.
Vic - take a gander at Obama’s issue positions from his website, then compare (no contrast necessary) to the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. It’s almost plagiarism on Obama’s part.
I’m truly amazed at people who are so angry and bitter that they are willing to do harm to the country just to punish some candidate or party they don’t like.
I would be ashamed to admit such pettiness.
#62
Vic
That statement makes me think of IMO what the Dems have done to us over the years. They put the pot of water on the stove and put on the low heat and SLOWLY put the frog in the pot of water and SLOWLY turn the heat up until we are COOKED. You will never hear a Dem say or campaign that they are socialist, Marxist, liberals or any other name. OBamBam and his 20 yrs listening to Pastor Wright are Marxist teachings IMO and that is why most people think he is a Marxist.
Wino/Vic - go back again and reread what I said. What I clearly laid out was that with the election of Obama, there is a far greater chance of a nuke detonation on US soil than with McCain. I did not say it would happen. I said the risk is far greater with a President Obama over a President McCain.
The whole idea is to prevent the occurance….not react to it. Vic, if there was a nuke detonation in a US city, would it really matter what our response was? Our response is not going to:
A. Lower the death toll
B. Lower the economic toll
So our response is clearly secondary to the event itself.
It is not a strawman question. It’s a clear possiblity if we have a president who is not serious about Iran. As for the southern border being wide open, it is very doubtful a nuke is going to arrive from Mexico. It will be far easier to bring it in on a container to any one of our large ports. They don’t even have to uncrate it. They can detonate it right in the container in port.
Again I will ask you. Is this what you are willing to risk?
Vic, as for your question of who held the Presidency when 9/11 occured, that is rather irrelevant too. The question for that is who set up the series of laws and the destruction of our intelligence apparatus that allowed 9/11 to occur?
Who was in the National Archives stuffing documents into his pants which where never found?
I’m not going to blame Pres. Clinton for the first attack. I sure as heck and going to blame him for the second attack because he did NOTHING to correct the problem. Attack after attack during Clinton’s presidency, correct? How many since 9/11 in the USA? President Clinton had three separate opportunities to get bin Ladin. He didn’t even try. He was offered to us on a platter. We had him pin pointed with pilots in the aircraft waiting to attack. He was too busy with golf.
Blaming Pres. Bush for 9/11 is one of the most specious points you could possibly make.
cross-posted on “McCain & Obama Different” thread:
Jim Geraghty at National Review:
What I am troubled by is that these so-called conservatives (this is not intended as a broad sweeping statement of all conservatives) who are all upset about McCain who whine and cry that McCain is not a clone of themselves. They threaten to walk away and allow Obama to win. If a candidate says anything remotely different than their viewpoint they scream RINO. If conservatives feel that they have been left to wander the wilderness for the next 40 years, they will have no one to blame but themselves when Obama gets elected.
Also this notion that we survived 4 years of Carter and the people had enough and elected Reagan, we can survive 4 years of Obama is a load of crap. The repercussions of that peanut farmer are still reverberating as some have pointed as well as those of Clinton. TO compound that with Obama may put this country in such a position that it can not recover. It is like one shock wave after another that soon they all catch up together who’s effects will be devastating in the long term. After 4 yrs of Obama would a conservative ever be elected again . ..maybe but maybe not. The political and societal landscape my have been altered to the point that Conservatives could be relegated into obscurity.
It is nice to be able to look beyond these next 4 years but if you want to avoid being a France you must not only look to the future but you must watch the present. It is easy to tear down virtue than build it up which is the objective of the Democrats. 4 yr Johnson, 4 yrs of Carter, did much damage to our country that not Even Reagan was able to repair all of it in his short 8 years. 8 years of Clinton undid much of what Reagan did. IT is the present that potentially lays the road to Paris and even “panem et circenses” (Bread and Circus’s)especially if is elected.
McCain will never know how I voted, he damned sure won’t know before election day. I don’t understand you people.
Do you, when you walk up to the car salesmen, tell him I’ll pay list but I want to negotiate?
When your child has misbehaved, do you spank them, ground them?
Hell, we are not even willing to give a time out!
Thats right he will not know how you voted except for you and whomever you tell. I guess you just do not understand how important this election is or what is at stake.
When the future, of our country is at stake, the future for ourselves and our children and so forth we can afford to petulant children. Playing games like the Republicans need to punished so let Obama have it for 4 years. He needs a time-out before we vote for him. Or I am just not going to vote which will be the same as voting for Obama.
So you better do as the Squawkster advises, call McCain, tell him your are an unwavering supporter but there are people out there, that ain’t buyin’.
Oh, and read #73 v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.
And it ain’t a freaking game to me, I’m sick of him, RINOs in general and the people who voted for them..
Look John McCain has called me names. He’s walked all over my cause, immigration. I still have to vote for him because, I cannot take the risk that you are wrong. I cannot risk an Obama presidency. Look at his wife. If you want to know who Obama is, read what comes out of her mouth. When the democrats control the house, senate and the presidency, what will stop them from deciding they should control the oil companies? What can stop them from removing any kind of anti-government speech from the airwaves? What about the large hi-tech companies. It’s unfair for their owners, officers to make millions upon millions. The government will need to regulate salaries to even the playing field. How do you feel about prayer, your religion, the pledge? What if it’s decided it’s too inflammitory to have God mentioned in any way…. who can stop them? I can see them sand blasting God off every thing in the Capital. Am I extreme? Perhaps. Oil take over and the fairness doctrine are already on the table.
Must be a real b**ch to find a candidate you have 100% agreement with.
And once elected, McCain will be very frustrated with us and welcome the fairness doctrine.
But you and I know that is his feeling right now.
Read #73 v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.
GoodJobTim, if I get a salesman I don’t like, he’s not going to let a suicide bomber with a nuclear device come into my city. Can you say the same if Obama is elected.
#82 gjt
I did and it still makes precious little sense.
Who, exactly, in the field of contenders for President (I’ll even go for the field as it existed at the start of the primaries to make it easier for you) measures up to your vision of pure conservative?
You spoiled, whiney crybabies. You are trying to shove 2 pounds of poop in a one pound pail.
Us rednecks will be jist fine. Call me a lawbreaker or worse, if you must.
I am teaching my kids not to have abortions, handle firearms safely, grow, kill and eat food. Be honest and be a productive member of society. Oh, and be kind to animals and humans and plenty more.
I ain’t settlin’ for any less. Screw the SCOTUS. Arrest me.
#84 NA
None of them. Sure won’t come our direction either if we don’t play hardball.
#83
Never mind, geesh.
They can make whatever ruling they want ST. I won’t give up my guns. I won’t give up my ammo. If they say I must, then they are in violation of the Constitution. At that point, they have declared
war on myself and all free peoples. And they become a legitimate target.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/alumni/magazine/2006/winter/facultyforum.html
As follows:
The standard account of judicial review is that Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison invented judicial review. But he didn’t. Indeed, the origins of judicial review do not lie in the history of review by judges but in the commitment to limited legislative authority. Not until 1910 did “judicial review” become the name for the practice of courts voiding legislation contrary to the Constitution. For decades, what we think of as “judicial review” was once described in terms of review under a standard that legislation could not be repugnant to the Constitution.
Did the generation that framed the Constitution intend judicial review to be part of the constitutional scheme?
Judicial review was initially taken for granted and presumed to exist. Many members of the Framing generation presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to a constitution.
Why did the Framing generation presume that judicial review was to exist?
They held this presumption because of colonial American history. In England, the by-laws of corporations had been subject to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations. Eventually, legislation from all the English colonies was limited by the principle that it could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed around 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council and the crown reviewed over 8,500 colonial acts.
In 1787, the Framers of the Constitution simply presumed that judges would continue this practice by voiding legislation repugnant to the Constitution. A few Framers worried about the power; however, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase noted that, although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the constitution void, general opinion, all the Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court justices had so decided.
By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” Accepting the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority, American constitutional law recommitted itself to a practice over four centuries old.
This account suggests new boundaries with respect to what history can tell us about the modern practice of judicial review. Because the practice presumed by the Founders emphasized the bounded nature of legislation limited by the laws of the nation, this history casts doubt on arguments that general “natural law” was regularly accepted as a legitimate basis for review. This history also helps to explain why federal courts embraced review of state courts relatively easily while the implications of review of congressional legislation were less well contemplated.
Equally important, other modern concerns may be hard to resolve by looking to the history of the Founding era. The ambiguity and certainty of “repugnant to the Constitution” meant that judges did not have to confront whether they were engaged in what we would call narrow or broad constructions of the Constitution. Similarly, because judicial review arose out of a prior practice rather than an idea about separation of powers, it was easy to accept judicial power but less clear whether the judiciary alone was the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution—the modern issues of judicial supremacy and departmentalism. As separation of powers became increasingly accepted as the highest constitutional principle, these questions came into focus. While the Founding history can provide a guide to some concerns, others we must wrestle with unaided.
Modern discussions of judicial review often may dwell too much on judicial review as imposed by judges on democratic politics. The Founders believed deeply that American constitutionalism was based, first and foremost, on constraining legislation by the laws of the nation and, most importantly, the Constitution. This history can remind us that both legislative and judicial power are legitimated by the belief that the Constitution delegates the power of the people—an entity that exists over time—and thus may reinforce a bounded, yet changing, Constitution.
This history of the repugnancy practice also presents a challenge to originalism. History matters—not because it tells us what we should think about the Constitution but because it suggests how we might think about it. We can care about constitutional history without being constitutional originalists. If we replace the originalist search for intent with a historical appreciation of assumptions, we might see that certain structures and ideas were assumed to be part of the constitutional framework but were not fully articulated or conceived. We might come to accept that, while history can go far in assisting in the interpretation of constitutional questions, there are inherent limits to the inquiry. Rather than desire to know with unattainable certainty the Framing generation’s intent, we would perhaps do better to seek to understand the more attainable boundaries of their assumptions.
Why won’t any of the I hate McCain and I won’t vote folks address the real possibility of Iran giving terrorists a working nuclear device. Do you just not want to quantify and face the consequences of the possibility?
#84 NA: ooohhh…oooohhhh! aaarrrr….peee…/ain’t saying his name, but was jist kiddin’ ta boot!
Duncan Hunter.
Guess we’ll never know, eh?
Bigs, shuuug, I hear ya.
$89 Bigs: I do understand your point. I’m just willing to put some suck it up cream on and practice the Duck and Cover technique and the Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition as well.
/please let the hyperlinks and u-tube links be right. Darn, free dial-up…
Goodjobtim,
I read your post and I understand it well. In McCain I have a sales man who meets me 80% of the way on the things that are important to me. In the Obama I have a sales man who sales man, who barely even meets me 5% of the way on the things important to me. This all from already known sources!
So which one would you choose. Remember the you have to choose one or one will be chosen for you and you have to stick with them for 4 yrs.
80 percent? You liberal. Or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Gee. I love mutton.
MMMM….Gee, ain’t nuttin’ better than mutton….
ST, trouble with a terrorist nuclear attack…you don’t get any warning to allow you to duck and cover. It’s done in a millisecond.