A Reminder For 2008

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just a reminder as we celebrate Heller....

Parker/Heller was filed in 2003. At that time, we did not yet know who would win the 2004 election. We also did not know that Rehnquist would die (leaving one likely pro-2A vote up for appointment) and that O'Connor would retire (leaving one questionable vote up for appointment).

We did not know that GWB would win the election in 2004 by a close; but not as close as 2000 margin. We did not know that "Machinegun Sammy" Alito would replace O'Connor or that Roberts would fill in for Rehnquist.

Given how close the 5-4 decision was, it could have easily gone the other way had Heller reached the Court earlier. Had Kerry been appointing Justices, it certainly would have gone the other way. Anybody regret the 2000 or 2004 elections now?

 

[armedtotheteeth]

nope, i dont. Imagine what would have happened 9/ 11 if Gore , or Kerry was in house. They would want to give the terrorists a hug. After all they dont really mean any harm

 

[Fremmer]

Obama will certainly appoint liberal, anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court.
Obama never met an anti-gun law that he doesn't like.
Obama doesn't like semi-automatic rifles or handguns. He would love to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who hates them, too. Remember, Obama's all about so-called "sensible gun safety laws." :barf:

 

[Danzig]

You are right..that's why we should elect Bob Barr to the presidency of The United States...so that he can then appoint some libertarian judges to the Supreme Court.

 

[GoSlash27]

I still regret the 2000/ '04 elections. One SC decision (and a tepid one at that) is nowhere near worth the cost to the soldiers, the nation, the economy, or the Republican party.

 

[xd9fan]

I agree.....Bush for all the right things he did for the Court (we will see if this even holds true) he did split the party and now the blue-blood moderates own it......he did what Libs were trying to do for years.....bring down the conservative....mission accomplished!!good luck.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You are right..that's why we should elect Bob Barr to the presidency of The United States...so that he can then appoint some libertarian judges to the Supreme Court.

Libertarians couldn't get Ron Paul into leading position in the Republican primaries despite a smaller pool of voters and a voting bloc more disposed to their concerns.

How exactly are they going to overcome those issues to win a general election? Clearly wishful thinking won't do it or the Libertarian party would already control all branches of the government.

 

[Al Norris]

One SC decision (and a tepid one at that) is nowhere near worth the cost to the soldiers, the nation, the economy, or the Republican party.

If you are referring to the Heller decision, it was far from being tepid.

If you are referring to that decision, then it is clear that you have not read the majority opinion (and the two dissents) and therefore could not have not analyzed them. Mores the pity if you have.

 

[STAGE 2]

I still regret the 2000/ '04 elections. One SC decision (and a tepid one at that) is nowhere near worth the cost to the soldiers, the nation, the economy, or the Republican party.

More than 6 years of record setting uninterrupted growth after the worst attack on american soil, high levels of support for the president within the military, no further attacks (despite many attempts) here at home, and for the first time in 200+ years we have a decision that clearly states what any rational thinking person already knew about the 2nd amendment.

Things haven't been perfect, but for 8 years it hasn't been teh doom and gloom you are suggesting.

 

[GoSlash27]

AP,

If you are referring to that decision, then it is clear that you have not read the majority opinion (and the two dissents) and therefore could not have not analyzed them. Mores the pity if you have.

This must be some of that 'adult discourse' you keep going on about

I read it. I understand it. It doesn't go nearly as far as it should have. Not just a personal opinion, mind you, but from a Constitutional/ legal standpoint.
You see anything guaranteeing incorporation in there? It's a 5-4 decision that doesn't really affirm anything.

Stage2,

Things haven't been perfect, but for 8 years it hasn't been teh doom and gloom you are suggesting.

You should probably go hunting around for a few like-minded folks who are interested in your Bush love-fest. Shouldn't be too hard; I imagine one out of every 5 folks you meet will agree with you. You can keep each other company during the coming liberal reign.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I read it. I understand it. It doesn't go nearly as far as it should have. Not just a personal opinion, mind you, but from a Constitutional/ legal standpoint.

OK, you claim to have read it and understand it. In addition you are qualified to state that this is not merely your personal opinion; but a Consitutional legal question that can be clearly answered. It is the Internet, so I am willing to take you at your word and then you throw this out there:

You see anything guaranteeing incorporation in there?

Well, no I don't see anything guaranteeing incorporation in there. Since you are qualified to speak on matters not purely from personal opinion but from a Constitutional/legal standpoint as well, I think you will agree with me that it would be exceedingly odd for the Supreme Court to guarantee the answer to a question nobody asked. It would be doubly odd considering that the current Chief Justice got his position by promising to keep his holdings narrow and limited to the case at hand.

Since Heller didn't involve any incorporation issue at all, it isn't any wonder that there was no guarantee. However, if you will turn that same part of your mind that allows you to make factual pronouncements on Constitutional/legal standpoints that have more weight than mere personal opinion to the section of Heller entitled "Post Civil-War Commentators" you can see a nice historical discussion of the Second Amendment that also serves as a very handy guide to making an incorporation argument for those who are legally attuned.

It's a 5-4 decision that doesn't really affirm anything.

Let's see... it only affirmed:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep AND bear arms unrelated to militia service.
2. This includes a right to arms for self-defense (no sporting purposes test)
3. The standard of protection for this right is as yet undefined but it cannot be anything less than the protection offered to any other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know. That seems like a pretty good deal to me; but I have not yet reached that lofty level where I can state my opinions as a matter of factual Constitutional/legal standpoint either.

 

[STAGE 2]

Not just a personal opinion, mind you, but from a Constitutional/ legal standpoint.

I would think that someone who is qualified to make statements from a "constitutional standpoint" would understand that the court only decides issues before it. All those wonderful things that you wish were in this decision weren't before the court. Therefore to decide them would be for the court to overstep its bounds. You see since DC isn't a state there is no incorporation issue here. But you'd know that since you can speak from a legal standpoint right?

You should probably go hunting around for a few like-minded folks who are interested in your Bush love-fest. Shouldn't be too hard; I imagine one out of every 5 folks you meet will agree with you. You can keep each other company during the coming liberal reign.

Same old junk. I'm sorry, but there are very few things in life that are all bad or all good. The same applies here. By insisting that recognizing some of the positive things this administration has done is a 'love fest' just demonstrates that your views are so skewed that they don't merit consideration.

 

[Al Norris]

This must be some of that 'adult discourse' you keep going on about.

Since both Bartholomew and Stage 2 have already replied to you, a simple "yes" should suffice for your answer from me.

I think what bothers me the most, is that many of us had said that the decision would be narrow. Many of us had said that it would be a decision that all sides would find something to gripe about.

Seems we were closer to the truth than we knew.

 

[publius42]

Ironically, I paused at the voting machine in the 04 election, and almost voted for Bush. I decided not to do it, because I didn't believe he would appoint judges I would like, and by that I mean, judges who can correctly identify something which is NOT interstate commerce.

I was kind of right - he appointed that Meier woman. Seemed like a nice enough lady, but what a disaster.

Then he proceeded to appoint TWO people who had in past opinions correctly identified something which was not interstate commerce (an indigenous California toad in the case of Roberts, and a machine gun in the case of Alito, though that one is now moot).

Had I thought that a possibility, I would have voted for Bush.

I don't think there's any chance that John McCain will appoint judges who can correctly identify something which is not interstate commerce. Here we go again...

 

[Bruxley]

I'll quote Obama himself as an expert on Obama's criteria for selecting Justices. He would be the absolute leading expert no......

From a Planned Parenthood conference in July 2007:link to story

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Shaping the intent of the Constitution to fit a liberal perspective seems to be EXACTLY what Obama sees as his qualifier as he said. I would prefer someone that held the Constitution as an indelible document rather then someone that can practice social liberalism as a Justice.

McCain as an expert on McCain's criteria at Wake forest University on May 7th 08:link to story

"My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power,"

Which criteria translates to interpretation on the Interstate Commerce Clause is up to you to determine.

 

[STAGE 2]

I don't think there's any chance that John McCain will appoint judges who can correctly identify something which is not interstate commerce. Here we go again...

From what I can gather from the other thread, both you and I seem to be in agreement about the commerce clause. We are also in agreement (sort of) that its more likely than not that McCain wont appoint a justice that will undo the current precedent.

However, here's the rub. Practically speaking, even if McCain did appoint such a person, it is very unlikely that they would be able to have an effect on the current interpretation of the commerce clause, especially since we have so many recent decisions affirming this interpretation.

So in reality your choice is between a justice that is going to hit 90% of what you agree with, and wouldn't be able to do anything about the remaining 10% anyways, or someone who is going to dismantle 90% of what you agree with.

 

[publius42]

Bruxley & STAGE2, you don't have to convince me that I'm likely to prefer McCain appointees to Obama appointees, at least on most issues. And who knows how McCain may surprise us. GHWB appointed Thomas, after all.

Odds are the next President will replace one of the 4 dissenters in Heller.

 

[GoSlash27]

That's exactly the point I was about to bring up

Of the majority Justices on Heller, which ones are liable to be leaving the bench in the next 8 years?
-Roberts
-Scalia
-Thomas
-Alito
-Kennedy

Of all these, I see Kennedy (my personal favorite) as being most at risk, having had a coronary stent and a balloon angioplasty in recent years... but overall he's in good health, particularly in comparison to the more liberal wing of the court.

The dissenters:
-Stevens
-Souter
-Ginsburg
-Breyer

Justice Stevens is the oldest member of the court at 88 and Justice Ginsburg is 3 years older than Kennedy and in the poorest health of all the Justices.

So the only 3 justices likely to be replaced are the 2 liberals followed by the swing voter.
In short, the court may remain the same, but is unlikely to become more liberal regardless of who's nominating them.

Now looking at who's nominating them.. I would, if anything, be more leery of McCain than Obama. Why?
Well, Obama's going to be liberal and everyone knows where he stands. The Republicans will have no problems fillibustering his nominees. But McCain? McCain's a different story. The Republicans won't want to fight him and he's got a habit of "bipartisan cooperation" (as he calls it) at the worst possible times.
I don't trust him to nominate conservatives and I don't trust the Republicans to stand up to him when he doesn't.

I don't personally think McCain has a chance anyway, but if I did this wouldn't be a reason for me to vote for him.

 

[STAGE 2]

In short, the court may remain the same, but is unlikely to become more liberal regardless of who's nominating them.

Now looking at who's nominating them.. I would, if anything, be more leery of McCain than Obama. Why?
Well, Obama's going to be liberal and everyone knows where he stands. The Republicans will have no problems fillibustering his nominees. But McCain? McCain's a different story. The Republicans won't want to fight him and he's got a habit of "bipartisan cooperation" (as he calls it) at the worst possible times.
I don't trust him to nominate conservatives and I don't trust the Republicans to stand up to him when he doesn't.

Your logic makes no sense at all. You start off by saying that Obama will appoint crappy justices. That much we agree on. Then you say that McCain might not appoint the justices that conservatives want and therefore it doesn't matter. Thats simply nonsensical. Both you and I know that even if McCain didn't appoint an extremely conservative justice he still wouldn't be shopping at the ACLU. Therefore, it would still be better than Obama. You see if everyone had your logic, kennedy would have been another ginsburg and our 2nd amendment would be toast.

Furthermore, your argument that the court is going to remain the same is completely a guess. There is no guarantee that the next justice to go won't be a conservative. While Roberts and Alito aren't going anywhere, scalia isn't getting any younger, and he's the lynchpin of conservatism. At some point these folks will get old and retire. It would be far better for us to have a bunch of younger folks that can weather a couple of liberal administrations than to 'hope' for the best.

Frankly I think its in poor taste and very dangerous to cry sour grapes like you do because your boy didn't win. My first choice for office didn't win either, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to steer the nation back on track. You seem to be content to let everything go to pot just so you can have your "i told you so". You downplay the good things that have happened over the last 8 years and even Heller. Thats not how people who care about the nation act.

 

[GoSlash27]

Stage2,

Your logic makes no sense at all.

Well let's see if we can't clear up your confusion.

You start off by saying that Obama will appoint crappy justices.

Yes.

Then you say that McCain might not appoint the justices that conservatives want...

I'm saying that he might appoint justices just as craptacular as Obama, but essentially yes..

and therefore it doesn't matter.

Ahh. Well there's yer problem. You should read the entire train of thought. Makes more sense that way.
The difference is that Republicans will fillibuster Obama's craptacular choices but will not fillibuster McCain's craptacular choices.

There is no guarantee that the next justice to go won't be a conservative.

There's no guarantee that Osama won't take a dump on his Koran and embrace Judaism tomorrow either, but I don't expect it and I'm not the one raising the specter as a campaign tactic

Frankly I think its in poor taste and very dangerous to cry sour grapes like you do because your boy didn't win.

Frankly, I think well-poisoning is a cheap tactic and personal attacks have no place on this forum.