PDA

View Full Version : Obama Nominates Anti-gun Judge to D.C. Court of Appeals


Southwest Chuck
07-25-2011, 12:05 PM
Picked up from another site:

From GOA:




Obama Nominates Anti-gun Activist to Country’s Second Most Important Court



Monday, 25 July 2011 10:41

In case you were thinking that Barack Obama’s hatred of the Second Amendment was subsiding, Obama has now nominated -- to the country’s second-highest court -- an avid leader in the effort to destroy firearms manufacturers using frivolous litigation.
The nomination of Caitlin Halligan -- formerly the solicitor general of New York -- to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals would put a rabid anti-gun activist in a position where she could do maximum damage to the Second Amendment.
As New York’s solicitor general, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.
Halligan’s public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for “handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.”
Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item -- whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else -- would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America.
It is also significant that a Washington-based anti-gun group openly took credit for coordinating anti-gun suits such as Halligan’s.
After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office signed a brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers’ Protection Act “unconstitutional” because it supposedly overstepped Congress’ powers.
This, at a time when Halligan would no doubt hold the anti-gun ObamaCare is constitutional because there are no effective limits on Congress’ powers.
Finally, Halligan, in written testimony submitted to the Senate in connection with her nomination, attempted to conceal the extent of her anti-gun animus.
Halligan’s failure to provide information that would clarify her statements, thus keeping her testimony from being misleading, constitutes “fraud” against the Senate. As such, the only role she should play in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the role of a defendant.
We have to stop this Presidential court-packing scheme. But we don’t have much time -- the Senate could be voting on this anti-gun nominee this week!
ACTION: Contact your senators and urge them to vote against the Halligan nomination.
Click here to send your Senators a prewritten email message.

Glock22Fan
07-25-2011, 12:18 PM
And we are surprised why?

Curley Red
07-25-2011, 12:31 PM
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103140026


National Review Misfires In Attack On Obama Judicial Nominee Halligan's Gun Rights Record
March 14, 2011 3:02 pm ET — 5 Comments
National Review Online blogger and conservative judicial activist Gary Marx accused Obama judicial nominee Caitlin Halligan of having "a very troubling record of dismissing the Second Amendment" during her time as New York state solicitor general. In fact, Marx's attack consists of criticism of Halligan for doing her job as solicitor general by filing briefs on behalf of the state of New York, and neither of the cases Marx cites deal with Second Amendment issues.
NRO Blogger Attacks Halligan For Court Filings In Suits Against Gun Manufacturers
NRO's Marx Points To Briefs Filed By Halligan To Claim She Has "A Very Troubling Record Of Dismissing The Second Amendment." From a National Review Online post by Gary Marx, executive director of the Judicial Crisis Network on Halligan's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

Since Ed and Carrie's entries were published, it has come to my attention that Halligan has a very troubling record of dismissing the Second Amendment while embracing discredited legal theories favored by trial lawyers.

In 2003, while serving as the solicitor general for the State of New York, Halligan signed the brief in the New York Supreme Court case The People vs. Sturm, Ruger & Co., a lawsuit brought against handgun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.

[...]

Luckily, like most courts that have addressed such claims, the court saw through the "public safety" facade and concluded that the nexus between the alleged conduct and the harm was "too tenuous and remote" to hold the industry liable.

[...]

Several years later, in City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Halligan filed an amicus brief in support of New York City in a lawsuit in which it made similar public-nuisance claims against handgun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.

Those lawsuits were part of a coordinated, national litigation strategy aimed at destroying the handgun industry. And they were just the latest in a long series of steps taken by trial lawyers to use public nuisance lawsuits to transfer wealth from targeted industries -- asbestos, tobacco, lead paint, lead pigment, guns -- to themselves. [National Review Online, 3/10/11]

In Cases Cited By NRO, Halligan Was Performing Her Duty As New York Solicitor General
In Both Cases, Halligan Played A Role In Appeals As New York State Solicitor General. Marx cites two cases in which Halligan participated. In both cases, Halligan's name was on appellate briefs filed by the State of New York:

•In People v. Sturm, Ruger Co. Inc., Halligan's name appears on a New York state appellate court brief filed by then-New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer on behalf of the people of New York. [People v. Sturm Ruger Co. Inc., via FindLaw.com, 6/24/03]
•In City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Halligan's name appears on a federal appellate court brief filed by then-New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo on behalf of the state of New York. [City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., via Lexis, 4/30/08]
NY Solicitor General "Is Responsible For Preparing And Arguing Civil And Criminal Appeals In Both State And Federal Court." From the New York state attorney general's website:

The Division of Appeals and Opinions operates under the direction of the Solicitor General, who, by statute, is appointed by the Attorney General. The Division is responsible for preparing and arguing civil and criminal appeals in both state and federal courts. The Division determines which cases are to be appealed and determines which legal arguments will be advanced on behalf of the State of New York. The Division also provides advice and counsel to the Attorney General and to Attorneys throughout the Office. [Office of the New York attorney general, accessed 3/14/11]

Neither Case Cited By NRO Involved The Second Amendment
New York Sought To Hold Gun Manufacturers Liable For Crimes Committed Using Guns Illegally Distributed In New York. The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division summarized the state of New York's argument as follows:

Plaintiff's complaint, as pertinent here, claims that illegally possessed handguns are a common-law public nuisance because they endanger the health and safety of a significant portion of the population;  interfere with, offend, injure and otherwise cause damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all;  and that, after being placed on actual and constructive notice that guns defendants sell, distribute and market are being used in crimes, they have, by their conduct and omissions, created, maintained and contributed to this public nuisance, because they manufacture, distribute and market handguns allegedly in a manner that knowingly places a disproportionate number of handguns in the possession of people who use them unlawfully.   Plaintiff further claims that defendants are on notice that certain types of guns, and guns sold in certain locales, are disproportionately used in the commission of crimes.   They base that claim on the results of trace requests which the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) initiates with respect to guns used in or associated with crimes, in furtherance of its duty to enforce and manage the federal firearm regulatory scheme.

Plaintiff therefore seeks an order, inter alia, "(1) directing defendants to abate the nuisance they have created and maintained within the State of New York [and] (2) directing each defendant to cease contributing to and maintaining the nuisance within the state of New York." [People v. Sturm, Ruger Co. Inc., via FindLaw.com, 6/24/03]

•Sturm, Ruger Court Did Not Mention Second Amendment Once In Its Decision. In its decision siding with the gun manufacturers and against the state of New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division did not once mention the Second Amendment. [People v. Sturm, Ruger Co. Inc., via FindLaw.com, 6/24/03]
In Beretta, The City Of New York Filed A Tenth Amendment Challenge To A Federal Law Restricting Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers. In Beretta, New York City had filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturers, and the gun manufacturers sought to have the case dismissed after the federal government passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which restricted lawsuits against gun manufacturers. New York City argued that the statute did not require dismissal of the case and that the statute was unconstitutional under the First and Tenth Amendments. From the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:

Defendants-appellants-cross-appellees, manufacturers and wholesale sellers of firearms ("Firearms Suppliers"), appeal from so much of an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.) as denies their motion, grounded on the claim restriction provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, for dismissal of the complaint. In the complaint, plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, the City of New York (the "City"), seeks injunctive relief to inhibit the diversion of firearms into illegal markets. The District Court determined that the Act did not violate the United States Constitution, and that the Act's statutory exception for claims based on the violation of a state statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms is met by New York's criminal nuisance statute. The City cross appeals from so much of the above-described order as rejects, in accordance with the position taken by intervenor United States of America, various constitutional challenges to the Act raised by the City. [City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., via Lexis, 4/30/08]

•Beretta Court Did Not Mention Second Amendment In Its Decision. In its decision siding with the gun manufacturers and against New York City, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not mention the Second Amendment. [City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., via Lexis, 4/30/08]
Halligan Testified That She Would Uphold The Second Amendment
Halligan: "I Would Follow" Supreme Court Precedent Finding That The Second Amendment Protects An Individual's Right To Keep And Bear Arms. From the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on Halligan's nomination:

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Well, that's pretty clear, so I won't have to follow up with another question I had on that subject.

On the Second Amendment, in 2003 you gave a speech expressing concern about federal legislation to limit the liability of gun manufacturers. You said, quote, "Such an action would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by states to find solutions through the legal system or their own legislatures that might reduce gun crime," end of quote. Many who opposed the Second Amendment rights made similar arguments against - after the Supreme Court decided Heller.

Do you personally agree that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to keep and bear arms?

MS. HALLIGAN: The Supreme Court has been clear about that. Yes, it does protect individual rights to bear arms, Senator.

SEN. GRASSLEY: And would you say that making it a functional right under McDonald was something you agree with as well?

MS. HALLIGAN: That's clearly what the Supreme Court held and I would follow that precedent, Senator. [Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, via Nexis, 2/2/11]

RRangel
07-25-2011, 12:37 PM
Why did you post this? It's Media Matters. You may as well have posted the opinion of anyone from the Brady Campaign. That or any other such groups that are vehemently opposed to the Second Amendment.


http://mediamatters.org/research/201103140026


National Review Misfires In Attack On Obama Judicial Nominee Halligan's Gun Rights Record
March 14, 2011 3:02 pm ET — 5 Comments
National Review Online blogger and conservative judicial activist Gary Marx accused Obama judicial nominee Caitlin Halligan of having "a very troubling record of dismissing the Second Amendment" during her time as New York state solicitor general. In fact, Marx's attack consists of criticism of Halligan for doing her job as solicitor general by filing briefs on behalf of the state of New York, and neither of the cases Marx cites deal with Second Amendment issues.
NRO Blogger Attacks Halligan For Court Filings In Suits Against Gun Manufacturers
NRO's Marx Points To Briefs Filed By Halligan To Claim She Has "A Very Troubling Record Of Dismissing The Second Amendment." From a National Review Online post by Gary Marx, executive director of the Judicial Crisis Network on Halligan's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

Since Ed and Carrie's entries were published, it has come to my attention that Halligan has a very troubling record of dismissing the Second Amendment while embracing discredited legal theories favored by trial lawyers.

In 2003, while serving as the solicitor general for the State of New York, Halligan signed the brief in the New York Supreme Court case The People vs. Sturm, Ruger & Co., a lawsuit brought against handgun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.

[...]

Luckily, like most courts that have addressed such claims, the court saw through the "public safety" facade and concluded that the nexus between the alleged conduct and the harm was "too tenuous and remote" to hold the industry liable.

[...]

Several years later, in City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Halligan filed an amicus brief in support of New York City in a lawsuit in which it made similar public-nuisance claims against handgun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.

Those lawsuits were part of a coordinated, national litigation strategy aimed at destroying the handgun industry. And they were just the latest in a long series of steps taken by trial lawyers to use public nuisance lawsuits to transfer wealth from targeted industries -- asbestos, tobacco, lead paint, lead pigment, guns -- to themselves. [National Review Online, 3/10/11]

In Cases Cited By NRO, Halligan Was Performing Her Duty As New York Solicitor General
In Both Cases, Halligan Played A Role In Appeals As New York State Solicitor General. Marx cites two cases in which Halligan participated. In both cases, Halligan's name was on appellate briefs filed by the State of New York:

•In People v. Sturm, Ruger Co. Inc., Halligan's name appears on a New York state appellate court brief filed by then-New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer on behalf of the people of New York. [People v. Sturm Ruger Co. Inc., via FindLaw.com, 6/24/03]
•In City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Halligan's name appears on a federal appellate court brief filed by then-New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo on behalf of the state of New York. [City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., via Lexis, 4/30/08]
NY Solicitor General "Is Responsible For Preparing And Arguing Civil And Criminal Appeals In Both State And Federal Court." From the New York state attorney general's website:

The Division of Appeals and Opinions operates under the direction of the Solicitor General, who, by statute, is appointed by the Attorney General. The Division is responsible for preparing and arguing civil and criminal appeals in both state and federal courts. The Division determines which cases are to be appealed and determines which legal arguments will be advanced on behalf of the State of New York. The Division also provides advice and counsel to the Attorney General and to Attorneys throughout the Office. [Office of the New York attorney general, accessed 3/14/11]

Neither Case Cited By NRO Involved The Second Amendment
New York Sought To Hold Gun Manufacturers Liable For Crimes Committed Using Guns Illegally Distributed In New York. The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division summarized the state of New York's argument as follows:

Plaintiff's complaint, as pertinent here, claims that illegally possessed handguns are a common-law public nuisance because they endanger the health and safety of a significant portion of the population;  interfere with, offend, injure and otherwise cause damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all;  and that, after being placed on actual and constructive notice that guns defendants sell, distribute and market are being used in crimes, they have, by their conduct and omissions, created, maintained and contributed to this public nuisance, because they manufacture, distribute and market handguns allegedly in a manner that knowingly places a disproportionate number of handguns in the possession of people who use them unlawfully.   Plaintiff further claims that defendants are on notice that certain types of guns, and guns sold in certain locales, are disproportionately used in the commission of crimes.   They base that claim on the results of trace requests which the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) initiates with respect to guns used in or associated with crimes, in furtherance of its duty to enforce and manage the federal firearm regulatory scheme.

Plaintiff therefore seeks an order, inter alia, "(1) directing defendants to abate the nuisance they have created and maintained within the State of New York [and] (2) directing each defendant to cease contributing to and maintaining the nuisance within the state of New York." [People v. Sturm, Ruger Co. Inc., via FindLaw.com, 6/24/03]

•Sturm, Ruger Court Did Not Mention Second Amendment Once In Its Decision. In its decision siding with the gun manufacturers and against the state of New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division did not once mention the Second Amendment. [People v. Sturm, Ruger Co. Inc., via FindLaw.com, 6/24/03]
In Beretta, The City Of New York Filed A Tenth Amendment Challenge To A Federal Law Restricting Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers. In Beretta, New York City had filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturers, and the gun manufacturers sought to have the case dismissed after the federal government passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which restricted lawsuits against gun manufacturers. New York City argued that the statute did not require dismissal of the case and that the statute was unconstitutional under the First and Tenth Amendments. From the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:

Defendants-appellants-cross-appellees, manufacturers and wholesale sellers of firearms ("Firearms Suppliers"), appeal from so much of an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.) as denies their motion, grounded on the claim restriction provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, for dismissal of the complaint. In the complaint, plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, the City of New York (the "City"), seeks injunctive relief to inhibit the diversion of firearms into illegal markets. The District Court determined that the Act did not violate the United States Constitution, and that the Act's statutory exception for claims based on the violation of a state statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms is met by New York's criminal nuisance statute. The City cross appeals from so much of the above-described order as rejects, in accordance with the position taken by intervenor United States of America, various constitutional challenges to the Act raised by the City. [City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., via Lexis, 4/30/08]

•Beretta Court Did Not Mention Second Amendment In Its Decision. In its decision siding with the gun manufacturers and against New York City, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not mention the Second Amendment. [City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., via Lexis, 4/30/08]
Halligan Testified That She Would Uphold The Second Amendment
Halligan: "I Would Follow" Supreme Court Precedent Finding That The Second Amendment Protects An Individual's Right To Keep And Bear Arms. From the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on Halligan's nomination:

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Well, that's pretty clear, so I won't have to follow up with another question I had on that subject.

On the Second Amendment, in 2003 you gave a speech expressing concern about federal legislation to limit the liability of gun manufacturers. You said, quote, "Such an action would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by states to find solutions through the legal system or their own legislatures that might reduce gun crime," end of quote. Many who opposed the Second Amendment rights made similar arguments against - after the Supreme Court decided Heller.

Do you personally agree that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to keep and bear arms?

MS. HALLIGAN: The Supreme Court has been clear about that. Yes, it does protect individual rights to bear arms, Senator.

SEN. GRASSLEY: And would you say that making it a functional right under McDonald was something you agree with as well?

MS. HALLIGAN: That's clearly what the Supreme Court held and I would follow that precedent, Senator. [Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, via Nexis, 2/2/11]

Glock22Fan
07-25-2011, 12:39 PM
Well, I seem to remember Sotomeyer claiming that she would support the decisions of the Supremes as well, only to backtrack the moment she was installed.

And whether the 2nd is specifically mentioned of not, any attack of that tenuous nature on gunmakers is an attack on the Second. Any claim otherwise is an exercise in sophistry.

Josh3239
07-25-2011, 12:51 PM
And we are surprised why?

Unfortunately I think there are some among us who are surprised by this.

VegasND
07-25-2011, 1:01 PM
I am not surprised but I expect all of Obama's nominees to support increased government power and infringement on our rights.

dantodd
07-25-2011, 1:03 PM
Unfortunately I think there are some among us who are surprised by this.

I believe you are wrong. If you could point out or have someone say so I'd appreciate it. I know that some CFGN'ers supported Obama but to the best of my knowledge that was either with the understanding that he was anti-gun and the vote was cast for other reasons or they thought he was neutral on 2A and have since learned otherwise. If you know of anyone who still thinks that Obama isn't anti-2A and is surprised by this appointment please name names or stop picking at the scab.

vantec08
07-25-2011, 2:42 PM
I believe you are wrong. If you could point out or have someone say so I'd appreciate it. I know that some CFGN'ers supported Obama but to the best of my knowledge that was either with the understanding that he was anti-gun and the vote was cast for other reasons or they thought he was neutral on 2A and have since learned otherwise. If you know of anyone who still thinks that Obama isn't anti-2A and is surprised by this appointment please name names or stop picking at the scab.

ok . . . . . .WHEN . . . . .. obammy voters admit they got CONNED.

sholling
07-25-2011, 3:09 PM
National Review Misfires In Attack On Obama Judicial Nominee Halligan's Gun Rights Record
Now why would you embarrass/out yourself as an anti by quoting a rabid left wing anti-freedom propaganda site? Do you really support putting hardcore anti 2nd Amendment judges in a position to roll back our rights? Well at least we know where you stand.

sholling
07-25-2011, 3:11 PM
National Review Misfires In Attack On Obama Judicial Nominee Halligan's Gun Rights Record
Now why would you embarrass/out yourself as an anti by quoting a rabid left wing anti-freedom propaganda site? Do you really support putting hardcore anti 2nd Amendment judges in a position to roll back our rights?

de1911
07-25-2011, 3:11 PM
So far Obama has been about as pro-gun as Bush, I know that will probably change soon but technically speaking...

tankarian
07-25-2011, 3:31 PM
Unfortunately I think there are some among us who are surprised by this.

That's divisive ;)

socal2310
07-25-2011, 3:42 PM
ok . . . . . .WHEN . . . . .. obammy voters admit they got CONNED.

You are only alienating those who might change their minds. Those who knew he was anti-gun but felt that issues such as universal healthcare were more important are likely still of the same mind. Which sort do you prefer?

Ryan

oni.dori
07-25-2011, 3:47 PM
So far Obama has been about as pro-gun as Bush, I know that will probably change soon but technically speaking...

Really? Which Bush, and please explain how so.

dantodd
07-25-2011, 4:06 PM
So far Obama has been about as pro-gun as Bush, I know that will probably change soon but technically speaking...

You are grossly mistaken, particularly as it relates to the issue at hand, judicial nominees.

Glock22Fan
07-25-2011, 4:38 PM
So far Obama has been about as pro-gun as Bush, I know that will probably change soon but technically speaking...

And which two violently anti gun Supremes did Bush appoint, and a slew of lesser judges, and which violently anti A.G. and SecState and BATFE Director and, and, and so forth ?????

Glock22Fan
07-25-2011, 4:42 PM
You are only alienating those who might change their minds. Those who knew he was anti-gun but felt that issues such as universal healthcare were more important are likely still of the same mind. Which sort do you prefer?

Ryan

Then they are unable to listen to the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. There can be few people left with any open-mindedness who think that Obama's version of Universal Healthcare stands any chance of working out. I wish I thought it would, my wife and I are both disabled and our medical bills are horrendous. We'd financially be better off back in the UK, if we didn't mind waiting three months to three years for appointments.

vantec08
07-25-2011, 5:03 PM
You are only alienating those who might change their minds. Those who knew he was anti-gun but felt that issues such as universal healthcare were more important are likely still of the same mind. Which sort do you prefer?

Ryan

Never ceases to amaze . . . . how many think there is something-for-nothing. I prefer the sort that knows better than to step in what their nose tells them isnt flowers.

stix213
07-25-2011, 5:24 PM
So far Obama has been about as pro-gun as Bush, I know that will probably change soon but technically speaking...

OMG of all the foolishness and ignorance you could spout off.....

Bush put in place supreme court justices that gave us the 5-4 wins in Heller and McDonald. If Kerry had won, the 2A would almost certainly have been interpreted as a "collective right" as in no right to guns other than if the .gov says so. Yes you can personally thank George W Bush for the 2A being interpreted as an individual right.

Obama has appointed 2 anti-gun justices to the supreme court, but hasn't been able to replace any of our 5. That's only because he hasn't been given the chance yet to appoint even more justices.

dantodd
07-25-2011, 5:30 PM
Never ceases to amaze . . . . how many think there is something-for-nothing. I prefer the sort that knows better than to step in what their nose tells them isnt flowers.

There are very well meaning and intelligent people on both sides of many issues. To dismiss someone as being a possible ally in the 2A fight simply because they don't see everything else in the world the same way you do is foolhardy. We can't expect all supporters of the second amendment to be single issue voters. I doubt you would have voted for Obama if he were pro-2A but all of his other beliefs were the same. Would you?

Imagine if 2A were to become a liberal cause rather than a, generally, more conservative one? Would you be able to easily vote for Nancy Pelosi if her rival were anti-2A but great on economic freedom?

socal2310
07-25-2011, 8:34 PM
Clarification: I am a vehement opponent of any form of socialism. I was simply pointing out that you have two broad camps of Obama supporters: those who were voting against McCain and those who are "true believers." Nothing is going to swing true believers which means the snarky comments truly target those most likely to be disillusioned by the Obama presidency.

yellowfin
07-25-2011, 9:25 PM
And which two violently anti gun Supremes did Bush appoint, and a slew of lesser judges, and which violently anti A.G. and SecState and BATFE Director and, and, and so forth ?????
I suppose if he was referring to H.W. Bush we could point to Souter as being an anti gun Supreme Court member (and a total scumbag) and the '89 ban.

darkwater
07-25-2011, 9:30 PM
Do we know if this nominee is replacing a judge that is/was conservative or liberal? In otherwords, is Obama just swapping one liberal for another with no real net gain?

mmbasser
07-25-2011, 9:46 PM
Yes, Souter is a traitor, he was the swing vote in the eminent domain travesty! I still can't believe that decision.

Imagine if 2A were to become a liberal cause rather than a, generally, more conservative one? Would you be able to easily vote for Nancy Pelosi if her rival were anti-2A but great on economic freedom?

NOPE, would never vote for that witch!

vantec08
07-26-2011, 3:19 AM
There are very well meaning and intelligent people on both sides of many issues. To dismiss someone as being a possible ally in the 2A fight simply because they don't see everything else in the world the same way you do is foolhardy. We can't expect all supporters of the second amendment to be single issue voters. I doubt you would have voted for Obama if he were pro-2A but all of his other beliefs were the same. Would you?

Imagine if 2A were to become a liberal cause rather than a, generally, more conservative one? Would you be able to easily vote for Nancy Pelosi if her rival were anti-2A but great on economic freedom?

Got conned, huh?

curtisfong
07-26-2011, 9:39 AM
Imagine if 2A were to become a liberal cause rather than a, generally, more conservative one? Would you be able to easily vote for Nancy Pelosi if her rival were anti-2A but great on economic freedom?

You already know the answer to this. People are stupid sheep when it comes to party lines. There is a reason our political system is as screwed up as it is, and this is it.

Paladin
07-26-2011, 10:57 AM
This is just another example of why increasing the NRA's membership is so vital -- we need both parties to truly FEAR the NRA to stop antis from even being considered for the federal courts.

Remember, even if the antis are quiet, they are not going away. Like Feinstein said (like the Sith), they'll just bid their time thinking, planning, and waiting for an opportunity. This is one such opportunity for them and we must make sure they do NOT get what they want.

ancora
07-26-2011, 11:47 AM
Following the lead of the Anointed One, Governor Moonbeam has chosen anti-gun U.C. Berkely professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. Will somebody tell me why any gun owner would vote for a democrat?

cll
07-26-2011, 12:03 PM
ok . . . . . .WHEN . . . . .. obammy voters admit they got CONNED.

Admitted

sholling
07-26-2011, 12:03 PM
Yes, Souter is a traitor, he was the swing vote in the eminent domain travesty! I still can't believe that decision.
I agree with you but in defense of the indefensible the POI clause of the 14th Amendment is still neutered and in my layman's opinion it's the POI clause that covers property rights beyond receiving "due process" and just compensation. At least that's my understanding (IANAL). I suspect that the court is embarrassed enough by their decision to someday revisit that area of the once POI is restored. So for now an unjust taking is allowed as long as the victim receives due process and just compensation. :rolleyes:

Full restoration of property rights is just one more reason that we need a reinvigorated POI clause.

Glock22Fan
07-26-2011, 12:13 PM
Following the lead of the Anointed One, Governor Moonbeam has chosen anti-gun U.C. Berkely professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. Will somebody tell me why any gun owner would vote for a democrat?

When the anti-gun RINO was even worse?