Protect the Supreme Court

N

NGIB

New member
I belong to a few firearms forums and on all of them there are a lot of folks that say "Ron Paul" or nothing. Would I like someone to be elected that would respect our Constitutional rights - absolutely. Will it happen - no.

My focus on this and every election is to prevent the Surpreme Court from being filled by left wing liberals that can affect me for the rest of my life. While there may not be any Republican candidate that satisfies the Ron Paul crowd, any of them is better than Clinton or Obama IMO.

The only body in this country with the POWER to interpret the Constitution is the Surpreme Court. Nominations to this court are made by the sitting president - can you just imagine the types of folks that Clinton or Obama would nominate - it scares me more than any other factor in the election.

Remember folks, appointments to the SC are for life so the court that's fashioned by the next sitting administration will be with us for a very long time. Just food for thought and my take on what's important...
 
A SCOTUS justice inclined to interpret laws to the benefit of a strong Federal gov't is just as dangerous as a leftist who chooses to write in his political view. You should not assume that just because the right is recommending a justice they will be good. A justice who supports our 2A rights is a good thing but what if he also believes the Executive has the power to label any person an unlawful combatant and lock them away indefinitely with no due process or oversight?
 
Yes I realize this; however, what types of folks would you expect Clinton or Obama to nominate - centrists?

We have a better chance of maintaining some type of reasonable court if the Dems do not win. Not guaranteed of course but at least a possibility that I do not envision with a Clinton/Obama administration...
 
There's no guarantees in how appointees will do but if you think Gore or Kerry would have put Thomas/Alito/Roberts on the bench you are very naive. Clinton/Obama will want another Ginsburg, a young one with about 40 years of legislating ability. Some of those liberal judges are hanging on to their seat just waiting for this next outcome. I'd rather roll the dice with a Republican appointed judge than lose a sure bet.

*Gee NGIB, great minds think alike...you posted that while I was typing my scholarly advice.
 
I actually can't remember the last time I voted for a candidate I wanted, actually I don't think I ever have TBH.

A left-wing liberal Surpreme Court is my one true fear regarding politics.

Presidents come and go but their legacy can far outlast them and this is something we must all remember....
 
**(Placeholder... to be revisited when the Heller decision is released)**

The recent judicial record of the supreme court, wrt constitutional rights, is mixed at best. Still, accepting your general premise for the moment, is a "left wing liberal" court a totally bad thing?

Can you agree the current situation is analogous to the classic boiling frog scenario? Many of us frogs are blissfully unaware of the danger. Anyone who raises a red flag is derided as a "chicken little". Sure, a few frogs die around the edges, but not enough to cause the majority to jump; in the sense of rejecting the status quo, in favor of real change, and the risks inherent. And, the status quo is increasingly identical to the liberal alternative, minus some meaningless hollow rhetoric.

Division and infighting abound...just look at this forum for proof. Better yet, do a reverse historical search of TFL back to 1999 (under Bill Clinton) and notice how more unified was the opposition, as compared to today.

Lets say a liberal dem is elected, and the worst happens. President Hillary passes AWBII, and nominates Chuck Schumer to Supreme Court. Court votes 5-4 that total gun ban is constitutional. Throw in socialized health care, w/ associated tax increases. Slick Willie becomes point man for harmonizing our constitution with United Nations charter, etc., etc. :eek:

It could be argued that this would set the stage for true reform, because it would clearly prove that liberal policies are unsuccessful. Us frogs would be jumping left and right; civil disobedience rampant. Ultimately, liberal .gov is rejected in favor of classic constitutional reform as we understand it.

A little pain in the short term for real gain in the future.

Turn up the heat.

Possible?
 
I personally hope we never have an armed revolution or another civil war between liberals and conservatives and constitutional purists.

"A little pain" - thoughts like this scare me and make us look like a bunch of radicals ready to start shooting if we don't get what we want...
 
Why do you find it necessary to extrapolate my post to an armed insurrection? Try again to address the arguments presented, before erecting strawmen. This is exactly what I meant with the "chicken little" reference...its currently popular for dissident opinions to be shouted down on false pretenses, in favor of what? Preserving the status quo (republican solution), which is increasingly identical to the liberal democratic alternative.

Did you miss the reference to civil disobedience? As to the reference to "pain"; yes, enduring adverse liberal .gov programs/court decisions would be painful. Take a look at Canada, and their response to national gun registry. Massive non-compliance, which led to shockingly high cost for no discernible gain. A good example how liberal programs, when executed, are exposed as wasteful and ineffective. Not necessarily an armed insurrection, was it?

In its most benign interpretation, a short period of failed liberal government might be the best launching pad for true constitutional reform.

You started this thread with the statement:
Would I like someone to be elected that would respect our Constitutional rights - absolutely. Will it happen - no.
Click to expand...

I'm merely suggesting you think outside the box for long term solutions, that address the defeatist message you're advocating. Or present other alternatives.;)
 
I really don't think I have a defeatist mentality - just being realistic. Your term "civil disobedience" can have a lot of meanings - which includes folks shooting in the streets.

We all need to work within our system as best we can to preserve our rights - this is what I advocate. I frequently contact my representatives at all levels and yes, I will vote against someone if needs be...
 
Hammer, can you give an example of when or where that strategy has worked? Either a country has a civil war or it inches along one way or another. We aren't going to move right by voting left or letting the left win battles. I agree that Republicans have moved left, but so has the left. When even Republican candidates solicit votes by promising government help and management of our lives that means we as a nation need to change first. It's unlikely to go towards the right if the left is increasingly governing from the bench.
 
The only real point I wanted to make is I think it's dangerous to say you won't vote at all if your candidate is not nominated. I saw a thread earlier that said something like 90% of the Ron Paul supporters would not compromise their beliefs and as such would not vote at all if he's not nominated.

I personally think this is dangerous because if Clinton or Obama get elected you can just about guarantee we'll end up with a left leaning Surpreme Court and I don't think this is good for anyone. If the court left office when the administration did, no problem, we could suffer through - but these folks are there for life.

I know we're all interested in DC vs Heller - and if we didn't have Roberts, Alito, and Thomas there we'd have little to hope for. Sure some appointees didn't work out as planned, but the Justices appointed by Republicans have generally been "safer" for the rank & file citizen.

I'll get off my soapbox now folks, I just wanted to make a point that every presidential election can have far reaching consequences - even if the president only serves a single term...
 
Hammer, can you give an example of when or where that strategy has worked? Either a country has a civil war or it inches along one way or another. We aren't going to move right by voting left or letting the left win battles.
Click to expand...

Several examples of nonviolent change of government. See velvet revolution, czech; German Democratic Republic (east Germany).

In response to your question, I don't think its a question of letting the left win; but rather staying true to your principles.

Viewed in terms of political momentum, nearly two decades of triangulation (aka: lying to get votes) has led to reduced differences between the rep and dem parties, save for hollow rhetoric. The pendulum is motionless, shifting left. Arguably, dems are setting up for a major swing left, in the next cycle.

See definition - triangulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics))

Remember, Ronald Reagan ran for president in 76 and lost to Gerald Ford in the primaries:confused:. Jimmy Carter capitalized on the screwups of Nixon/Ford to get elected in 76. Similarly, it took Carter's screwups to propel Reagan to the presidency in 1980. The same guy couldn't survive the 76 primaries.

I'm suggesting that a strong movement to the left, in the 2008 election; might be the perfect prelude to a more conservative candidate in 2012. It will galvanize the opposition (like here on the gun boards), that is now famously divided and bickering. Depending on how strongly the gun bans are pushed, it may popularize civil disobedience (not necessarily bad, despite current misunderstandings).

If anything, a dem/liberal administration is not utter total disaster, given current repub frontrunners (I like Ron Paul, but agree he's a longshot at this point).

Let the dems screw up, and use it to our advantage, in the long run. Catch the pendulum on the backswing. Painful, but maybe the most realistic scenario possible at this point.

Open to alternatives, for discussion.
 
If it weren't for the age of some of our SC justices I'd agree with you for the most part. I expect the next administration will appoint at least 1 and possibly as many as 3 new justices to the court. While the Dem winning in 2008 may well be voted out in 2012, the folks they get on the SC will be there for the long term as we do not get to vote to replace them...
 
Hammer, can you give an example of when or where that strategy has worked? Either a country has a civil war or it inches along one way or another. We aren't going to move right by voting left or letting the left win battles.
Click to expand...

Where were you when the Berlin Wall came down? I don't remember any gunfire.
 
Where were you when the Berlin Wall came down? I don't remember any gunfire.
Click to expand...
I was here paying attention to it. It was the collapse of the USSR that made that happen, right?

Hammer, how well is the pendulum doing in Australia, Canada and Great Britian?
 
It could be argued that this would set the stage for true reform, because it would clearly prove that liberal policies are unsuccessful. Us frogs would be jumping left and right; civil disobedience rampant. Ultimately, liberal .gov is rejected in favor of classic constitutional reform as we understand it.

A little pain in the short term for real gain in the future.

Turn up the heat.

Possible?
Click to expand...

I don't know about the fall of the Berlin Wall, but looking back at 92/94, I would say your hypothetical situation isn't totally hypothetical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top