Former Sen. Fred Thompson may run

Status
Not open for further replies.
Judicial activism is deciding issues that need not be reached in order to resolve the case or controversy presently before the court.

For example, look at the recent D.C. Ct. App. case in Parker. Assume the case is heard by the Court on cert and the Supremes decide that there wasn't standing. I may disagree with the decision based on legal, political, or emotional reasons, but the Court will have exercised judicial restraint by not deciding more than necessary to resolve that particular dispute.

As to same sex marriage, I don't have a dog in the fight and truthfully don't care. I do consider it a political issue that would be better left in the hands of legislatures. In fact, isn't there majority support for same sex marriage in a number of states.

As for Parker, I fear this may be a "careful what you wish for b/c you just may get it" situation. The RKBA and gun owners in general have won numerous political battles that may be undone by one ill conceived legal challenge. 20 years ago there were few if any shall issue states. Today the number is over 30. Federal legislation was passed to protect firearm manufacturers. Right or wrong it demonstrates the political clout of gun owners in general.

In Parker, the majority rejected the idea that the 2nd amendment was a dead letter. Incredibly, I fear that an ultimate legal showdown over the 2nd amendment could possibly lead to this conclusion.

If the Court finds the first clause of the 2nd amendment is prefatory and that the second clause is operative and evinces an individual right, then gun owners will rejoice.

Alternatively, if the first clause modifies or resticts the scope of the second clause, then there is a persuasive argument that the 2nd amendment is a dead letter. Regardless of the endless and myriad definitions regurgitated by others regarding the definition of militia, there is no more state militia in existence today.

For that reason, I wonder if the RKBA and the protection of all individual liberties wouldn't be better served by working to resurrect and reconstitute a functional and legitimate state militia in each of the several states. :)
 
JuanCarlos

"Applying the same standard to the second amendment, I see nowhere in that text that the right to own high-capacity magazines, or carry concealed, or to own without registration, or all kinds of other "rights" folks here like to assume we have are specifically enumerated."
Click to expand...


Applying the same standard to the first amendment, I see nowhere in that text that the right to dance naked, communicate via the internet, use typrwriters or PCs, or all kinds of other "rights" folks here like to assume we have are specifically enumerated.
 
Essentially, I fail to see how this isn't a first amendment issue when nearly every argument used to prevent gays from marrying at the state level is rooted in religion. Additionally, since it was brought up, I fail to see how this isn't a fourteenth amendment issue since at it's root it's nothing but gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

Isn't this why they were talking about a marriage AMENDMENT, and not just legislation which would be found unconstitutional as you mention?

Applying the same standard to the first amendment, I see nowhere in that text that the right to dance naked, communicate via the internet, use typrwriters or PCs, or all kinds of other "rights" folks here like to assume we have are specifically enumerated.
Click to expand...

The point is that we apply the same standards in interpretation, not using different yardsticks as it suits us.

Sometimes that means you gotta allow satanic churches and gay marriages.(not explicitly supporting either, merely making a point)
 
What void is that? Party-line Republican who is moderately more famous? When somebody who is pro-rights rather than simply pro-gun enters the ring, wake me.
Click to expand...

The panel was referring specifically to the social conservative problem of "Family Values" vs "Multiple Failed Marriages"

I would love to see someone the entire country can get behind. Time to get away from the Clinton/Bush dynasties and put in someone fresh. Unfortunately, the current system requires a LOT of cash. Not sure that someone not already in the inner circle can raise enough. :(
 
Seeing posts like this, and how the small minoriity sets the agenda for everyone else drives me crazy. Then everyone wonders why the Country is going to he!!.

kenny b
 
JuanCarlos
"Applying the same standard to the second amendment, I see nowhere in that text that the right to own high-capacity magazines, or carry concealed, or to own without registration, or all kinds of other "rights" folks here like to assume we have are specifically enumerated."
Click to expand...
Applying the same standard to the first amendment, I see nowhere in that text that the right to dance naked, communicate via the internet, use typrwriters or PCs, or all kinds of other "rights" folks here like to assume we have are specifically enumerated.
Click to expand...
Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Because last I checked I'm all for all those activities. Is this somehow inconsistent with my assertion that I prefer a liberal interpretation the first amendment (and fourteenth) in addition to the second?
Isn't this why they were talking about a marriage AMENDMENT, and not just legislation which would be found unconstitutional as you mention?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The problem being that such an amendment is unlikely to pass (as opposed to a law). So they continue to let the states do their dirty work.
Seeing posts like this, and how the small minoriity sets the agenda for everyone else drives me crazy. Then everyone wonders why the Country is going to he!!.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you're talking about gays/gay rights activists. To which I say "assault weapon" owners are a small minority as well.

EDIT: Normally when talking about "posts like this" it's better to quote the one you're referring to.
 
Hmm, I interpret his words "small minority" to reference our fine leaders / politicians. Clarification would be nice here.
 
I'm gonna jump in here with a small side note . I think that many folks are afraid of the "slippery slope" here . This all seems innocent on the surface . 2 people that are attracted to each other wishing to dwell together and enjoy all the perks of any other "couple". Sounds all well and good BUT some are waiting for the other shoe to drop . This might not be the end all that some want it to be . I don't claim to know who wants to begin Chapter 2 of an assault on our status quo but I have seen innocent looking intentions wreaking havoc on many and with far reaching agrivation .

The Endangered Species Act has done tons of harm when all it "seemed" to want to do is save a few fish . The Spotted Owl huggers wanted to save an area so their little feathered friends could survive . Once this innocent sounding request was granted the "habitat" was declared to be almost the entire area of the North West United States . A salmon was thought to be in trouble so water was denied to thousands of farms causing untold damage on families and livestock . A dam which would provide power to many families was delayed for years because of a small fish (snail darter). I'm not saying right or wrong in these types of things . Just that what seems to start out simply will take on a life of it's own at the hands of those that take a shield and turn it into a sword .
 
I'm assuming you're talking about gays/gay rights activists. To which I say "assault weapon" owners are a small minority as well.
Click to expand...

Look Neil and Bob have the right to neil and bob if they want too, but it ain't up to me to supply knee pads, just don't do it in front of me. Now will neil and bob say the same about me owning an AK, I don't think so.

Why should Bob get Neils social security benifits if Neil dies the same as my wife would get mine. Did Neil and Bob have children to grow, support and carry on the American way of life for future generations to come?

kenny b
 
I'm gonna jump in here with a small side note . I think that many folks are afraid of the "slippery slope" here . This all seems innocent on the surface . 2 people that are attracted to each other wishing to dwell together and enjoy all the perks of any other "couple". Sounds all well and good BUT some are waiting for the other shoe to drop . This might not be the end all that some want it to be . I don't claim to know who wants to begin Chapter 2 of an assault on our status quo but I have seen innocent looking intentions wreaking havoc on many and with far reaching agrivation .
Click to expand...

What's the slippery slope, though? With guns you've got regulation leads to registration leads to confiscation...or something similar. With letting gays marry you've got....well, that's pretty much the bottom of the slope, isn't it? I suppose there's gays in the military (which I also support*). But it's not like with gun control where there's some nefarious endgoal lurking around the corner...this is pretty much it. One you've hit "equal rights for gays" there isn't anything left.

* - Before anybody starts, I've spent nearly eight years of my life in the military. Active duty combat arms, as well as National Guard time. Deployment to Iraq to boot.

Look Neil and Bob have the right to neil and bob if they want too, but it ain't up to me to supply knee pads, just don't do it in front of me. Now will neil and bob say the same about me owning an AK, I don't think so.

Why should Bob get Neils social security benifits if Neil dies the same as my wife would get mine. Did Neil and Bob have children to grow, support and carry on the American way of life for future generations to come?
Click to expand...

So if my wife and I never have kids she shouldn't receive my Social Security benefits if I die? Since when is having kids some requirement of being able to get married? Plenty of married couples nowadays never have kids, but enjoy all the other benefits of marriage. Your argument also fails as I've already mentioned those who are voluntarily sterile but still able to marry...unlike gays.

Also, Neil and Bob may be much more supportive of your right to bear arms if you showed a little more support for their right to be treated equally as human beings. As it is they probably associate the desire to own an AK-47 or AR-15 with rednecks who hate them and never want them to have equal rights. Unfortunately, as my time around here and elsewhere has shown me they're all too often correct.

Is that the best you've got? Does nobody here have anything better than "eeeew....gays are icky?"
 
According to Bill O'Reilly, the slippery slope is that NEXT we'll have to allow marriage and sex with animals.
 
According to Bill O'Reilly, the slippery slope is that NEXT we'll have to allow marriage and sex with animals.
Click to expand...

I thought that was Rick Santorum (sad to see that guy go, I tell you what). Though I could see Bill-O spewing that crap, too.

I'm pretty sure we can put the brakes on before we hit that part of the slope. After all, animals hardly qualify as willing, consenting adults.
 
Also, Neil and Bob may be much more supportive of your right to bear arms if you showed a little more support for their right to be treated equally as human beings. As it is they probably associate the desire to own an AK-47 or AR-15 with rednecks who hate them and never want them to have equal rights.
Click to expand...

Just what "right" did I deny neil and bob in my post. Was it the "right" to be supplied with knee pads or the "right" to be legally married.

Then again my "right" of speech "opinion" is attacked because I don't agree with you and your views.

You have a right to look into a mirror, notice anything.

kenny b
 
Was this about Fred Thompson?

I would vote for him given the current field.

According to Bill O'Reilly, the slippery slope is that NEXT we'll have to allow marriage and sex with animals.
Click to expand...

I really don't have a strong opinion on same-sex marriage. I think it falls under state rights. My state hasn't really addressed it. I do think that the comparison to sex with animals just screams beastiality and takes away from a rational argument.
 
When I last checked, discussions about sexuality was sorta frowned upon here. To the point of thread closure.

Too bad that you all didn't read the forum rules and stick to discussing Fred Thomspon, instead of taking a single political view of his and ruining the thread.

Feel free to actually discuss Thompson as a candidate in another thread, 'cause this one is -

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top