PDA

View Full Version : The Supreme Court...?


ubet
06-07-2012, 6:43 AM
I dont know why, but as I was showering this morning, I got to thinking about the 2a and SCOTUS. Looking at the birthdates of Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, and Scalia, is their a chance that the next POTUS might have the chance to replace half, if not all of them?

Then I got to thinking, if barack gets re elected, what a complete and utter DISASTER that would be. I had been thinking about writing in a candidate, but now, because of the age of 4 of the Justices, might just have to stomach it and vote for Romney, God knows we dont want bho to be able to nominate anymore justices. Is this a fair assessment?

yellowfin
06-07-2012, 6:45 AM
We've been thinking about that since around February 2008 or so.

loather
06-07-2012, 7:16 AM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

TacticalPlinker
06-07-2012, 7:21 AM
I dont know why, but as I was showering this morning, I got to thinking about the 2a and SCOTUS. Looking at the birthdates of Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, and Scalia, is their a chance that the next POTUS might have the chance to replace half, if not all of them?

Then I got to thinking, if barack gets re elected, what a complete and utter DISASTER that would be. I had been thinking about writing in a candidate, but now, because of the age of 4 of the Justices, might just have to stomach it and vote for Romney, God knows we dont want bho to be able to nominate anymore justices. Is this a fair assessment?

Holy crap!

Ginsburg 1933
Scalia 1936
Kennedy 1936
Breyer 1938


Yeah, that's a fair assessment. At nearly 80 years of age, I really can't see them going on for too much longer. Souter was born in 1939 and retired in 2009. It's not a far stretch to say all 4 could retire in the next 4 years. Scary to think who might replace them.

tacticalcity
06-07-2012, 7:26 AM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

In the primary election you would be correct. In a general election you are dead wrong. Doing it your way lead to Bill Clinton. Remember Ross Perot? Once the primary is settled and the general election is on, you have to choose a side.

paul0660
06-07-2012, 7:31 AM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

I know you are serious, but you are wrong.

As for the original point, scotus is one of the few reasons to vote. Of course in this state the Dems are a lead pipe cinch, so scratch that reason.

1stLineGear
06-07-2012, 7:34 AM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

You could not be more wrong. So you want Obama to select 4 new supreme court justices?

Cnynrat
06-07-2012, 7:35 AM
I believe Ginsberg has some health issues as well, so she seems likely to retire soon. Quite a difference between 0bama having a chance to replace her and maintain the current balance for a long time, vs. Romney having the chance to shift the balance.

While Scalia is getting up there in years, he is healthy and still seems to have a lot of energy. I would hope he would hold on thru a second 0bama term if for no other reason than to deny 0bama the chance to replace him with someone of Kagan's/Sotomayer's ilk.

jwkincal
06-07-2012, 7:38 AM
If you don't vote for Romney, you are inviting another Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Sotomayor or Kagan onto the court. This would be a bad thing for the advance of Second Amendment Rights in our country.

I doubt that anything else matters nearly as much. Many folks have said (perhaps rightly so) that there isn't a whole lot of difference at the policy level between the two candidates, but there is a difference in judicial nominations.

Purists can argue until the cows come home about proper electoral motive, voting your conscience and all that pretty philosophy; the bottom line is that all politicians on the national stage are compromised and Presidential politics matter a lot less than most people think (by design, you know... as the RP folks say, 'read the Constitution').

The one thing that DOES MATTER, and matters RIGHT NOW because of the position of our movement, is the power of the Executive Branch to make Judicial Nominations. We've seen what BHO's nominees look like, there's NO WAY Mittens could do worse, and he has financial constituencies which will influence him to do better.

Vote for whichever party makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside for every other office. YOUR GUNS want you to vote Mitt Romney for President.

wazdat
06-07-2012, 7:53 AM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

That might work if the President were elected by popular vote.

Cnynrat
06-07-2012, 8:05 AM
That might work if the President were elected by popular vote.

True. In California where it is inevitable that our Electoral votes will bring cast for 0bama, we have the opportunity to vote our conscience.

email
06-07-2012, 8:18 AM
Calling loose electron, come in loose electron...we have a situation here...

ptoguy2002
06-07-2012, 8:25 AM
If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.


I can sympathize with the sentiment, but this is such a load of BS. If everybody did this you'd end up with a BHO or dem president every time.
Wake up and join reality.

Gray Peterson
06-07-2012, 8:32 AM
From a legal work perspective, in re the legal work CGF and other legal orgs such as SAF, it's safer for us to assume an Obama win in terms of determining our directions of legal work. The whole, "never make your plan with the rosy path, always use the worst one" thing.

Untamed1972
06-07-2012, 8:39 AM
I dont know why, but as I was showering this morning, I got to thinking about the 2a and SCOTUS. Looking at the birthdates of Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, and Scalia, is their a chance that the next POTUS might have the chance to replace half, if not all of them?


What concerns me is....why are you thinking about guns and old guys in the shower? :eek: LOL :p

ZombieTactics
06-07-2012, 8:40 AM
... If everyone did this ...
Well, "if everyone" did all sorts of things we wouldn't have any number of problems. That's hardly an argument for anything however, because it's just not how reality operates.

In the real world people have to form alliances and make difficult decisions. This involves putting your energies and resources where they can do something more than make you feel good.

I voted for Ron Paul on Tuesday, because I saw no downside to doing so in California during a primary election. It won't get him the nomination, but it sends the right kind of message to the Romney campaign if enough people do it. That's one potential way to wield some small influence.

Once the nomination is settled, I'm voting according to the "Reagan Rule": for the most conservative candidate who can win.

Anything else is the tactic of wishful thinking IMHO.

Mesa Tactical
06-07-2012, 9:10 AM
Then I got to thinking, if barack gets re elected, what a complete and utter DISASTER that would be. I had been thinking about writing in a candidate, but now, because of the age of 4 of the Justices, might just have to stomach it and vote for Romney, God knows we dont want bho to be able to nominate anymore justices. Is this a fair assessment?

Vote your conscience. California's 55 Electoral College votes are going to Obama.

jorgyusa
06-07-2012, 8:46 PM
I have heard it said that this election (because of judicial appointments) is not about the next 4 years but about he next 40 years and I think the affect could be longer than that, because once a right is gone it doesn't come back without upheaval or revolution. And besides a lot of us will be dead in 40 years and not enjoy a restoration of rights if it comes after an Obama victory. I agree that Obama will win in California and in the quiet of the voting booth you can vote for whoever, but in public we must enthusiastically support Romney with money and anything else (i.e calling out of state voters in swing states). Tell the pollsters that he is your candidate. Consensus works for a lot of voters who want to simply be on the winning side.

It is too bad that we can never seem to get the perfect candidate, but that is life and we must look at the bigger picture.

stix213
06-07-2012, 10:09 PM
I dont know why, but as I was showering this morning, I got to thinking about the 2a and SCOTUS. Looking at the birthdates of Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, and Scalia, is their a chance that the next POTUS might have the chance to replace half, if not all of them?

Then I got to thinking, if barack gets re elected, what a complete and utter DISASTER that would be. I had been thinking about writing in a candidate, but now, because of the age of 4 of the Justices, might just have to stomach it and vote for Romney, God knows we dont want bho to be able to nominate anymore justices. Is this a fair assessment?

Please help explain this to the people who are going to write in Paul in the general rather than vote Romney, cause they value principal over actual results.

ubet
06-07-2012, 10:24 PM
What concerns me is....why are you thinking about guns and old guys in the shower? :eek: LOL :p

:chris: Dont worry, it concerns me too!

ubet
06-07-2012, 10:28 PM
Please help explain this to the people who are going to write in Paul in the general rather than vote Romney, cause they value principal over actual results.

You cant tell the Paul voters anything :(. Its like a cult with them.

Dont get me wrong, domestic policy, he is amazing, his foreign policy is a train wreck.

ClarenceBoddicker
06-07-2012, 11:14 PM
The Senate has to confirm all SCOTUS nominees. The POTUS only selects them, it's up to voters in all 50 states to OK them. As long as the GOP keeps choosing worthless candidates like Mitts, our 2A rights will remain in jeopardy. The GOP is not aligned with personal freedom & Liberty, but with the rich & mega corporations. The GOP will never field a candidate that can beat Boxer or DiFi. I highly doubt CA will ever vote for a non democrat POTUS again. FDR tried to pack the court & it didn't work. Pro 2A people should concentrate on the US Congress, as that is where the fight will be won or lost.

Ripon83
06-07-2012, 11:38 PM
I'm glad some people remember.

If BHO got to replace Scalia and or another conservative member of the court its toast. Obama supporters can point to Romney's "issues" from Massachusetts all they want its a liberal anti gun state - just like ours - but with a pro gun congress (which we have) he'll be just fine. He didn't have a pro gun legislature in Mass; and he's cuddled up to the NRA as he should.....

Now for the real kicker....he's only 11 pts down in CA. Lets help Romney at least "threaten" to win CA and make Obama waste his resources here.


In the primary election you would be correct. In a general election you are dead wrong. Doing it your way lead to Bill Clinton. Remember Ross Perot? Once the primary is settled and the general election is on, you have to choose a side.

k1dude
06-08-2012, 1:26 AM
Most people don't realize that this election determines the fate of the nation forever. It's all about the Supreme Court. You are voting for the person that gets to select several new Supreme Court justices. If Obama wins, kiss the nation as we knew it goodbye. The court will likely be stacked for several decades by communists that abhor the Constitution and our founding fathers. Say goodbye to your firearms. It's that simple.

The economy and social issues take a very distant back seat to choosing Supreme Court justices. The future of our country will be determined by the Supreme Court.

ForceofNations
06-08-2012, 1:51 AM
True. In California where it is inevitable that our Electoral votes will bring cast for 0bama, we have the opportunity to vote our conscience.

Exactly. As long as the electoral college is winner take all...I'll either write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson... it will make no difference since my vote doesn't count in our state.

vantec08
06-08-2012, 2:22 AM
The Senate has to confirm all SCOTUS nominees. The POTUS only selects them, it's up to voters in all 50 states to OK them. As long as the GOP keeps choosing worthless candidates like Mitts, our 2A rights will remain in jeopardy. The GOP is not aligned with personal freedom & Liberty, but with the rich & mega corporations. The GOP will never field a candidate that can beat Boxer or DiFi. I highly doubt CA will ever vote for a non democrat POTUS again. FDR tried to pack the court & it didn't work. Pro 2A people should concentrate on the US Congress, as that is where the fight will be won or lost.


One party has been successful at establishing a baseline of dependency and irresponsibility. When some voters try something a little different, they decide the water is too hot and retreat back into the comfortable fold. The other party has compromised their principles so much who knows what they're about. Its like old shoes -- rather than go thru the discomfort of breaking in new ones, the old one is comfortable. Part of the trade-off for the comfortable fold is COTUS and the BOR.


A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
― Alexis de Tocqueville

stix213
06-08-2012, 2:34 AM
The Senate has to confirm all SCOTUS nominees. The POTUS only selects them, it's up to voters in all 50 states to OK them. As long as the GOP keeps choosing worthless candidates like Mitts, our 2A rights will remain in jeopardy. The GOP is not aligned with personal freedom & Liberty, but with the rich & mega corporations. The GOP will never field a candidate that can beat Boxer or DiFi. I highly doubt CA will ever vote for a non democrat POTUS again. FDR tried to pack the court & it didn't work. Pro 2A people should concentrate on the US Congress, as that is where the fight will be won or lost.

The US congress comes and goes frequently, SCOTUS appointments last a lifetime. Just because in your opinion FDR failed at stacking the court, doesn't mean it is impossible.

alice901212
06-08-2012, 2:52 AM
Of course in this state the Dems are a lead pipe cinch, so scratch that reason.

Goosebrown
06-08-2012, 4:57 AM
"Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job."

Absolutely right. I don't love Romney or Obama and I have a tough choice, but 2a rights are my only deciding factor. I have to see if there is anyone else on the ballot here to vote for.

Dreaded Claymore
06-08-2012, 1:24 PM
In the primary, vote for the greatest good. In the general election, vote for the lesser of two evils.

It'd be really cool if we did instant runoff voting like some countries do.

Bruce
06-08-2012, 1:36 PM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

But Theodore Roosevelt is dead. :(

Oneaudiopro
06-08-2012, 1:58 PM
Exactly. As long as the electoral college is winner take all...I'll either write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson... it will make no difference since my vote doesn't count in our state.

Poor crazy mixed up poster! You're part of the reason this state is in as sad a state as it is. Vote for the person that is "most" likely to beat Obama.

Wherryj
06-08-2012, 2:52 PM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

This is a nice idea, but voting for a non-viable candidate could be just as good as a vote for your WORST choice.

Life isn't black and white. In an ideal world you would always be best voting for the candidate of your choice. In the real world you are usually best off if you vote for the candidate that you feel will do the least damage.

Your suggestion ignores some very serious realities. There are very limited candidates and they are mostly controlled by "the party". We really only have two of those.

There is also almost no chance for anyone other than an R or a D to win in most places. Voting for the independent is a great idea, but when they pull in 12% of the vote, your vote was thrown away. If those 12% had voted for one of the two "front runners", the election hangs in the balance.

Wherryj
06-08-2012, 2:53 PM
But Theodore Roosevelt is dead. :(

I don't want Roosevelt, I want Washington. He DIDN'T want the job. He was therefore serving for the right reason.

J.D.Allen
06-08-2012, 4:06 PM
If you don't vote for Romney, you are inviting another Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Sotomayor or Kagan onto the court. This would be a bad thing for the advance of Second Amendment Rights in our country.

I doubt that anything else matters nearly as much. Many folks have said (perhaps rightly so) that there isn't a whole lot of difference at the policy level between the two candidates, but there is a difference in judicial nominations.

Purists can argue until the cows come home about proper electoral motive, voting your conscience and all that pretty philosophy; the bottom line is that all politicians on the national stage are compromised and Presidential politics matter a lot less than most people think (by design, you know... as the RP folks say, 'read the Constitution').

The one thing that DOES MATTER, and matters RIGHT NOW because of the position of our movement, is the power of the Executive Branch to make Judicial Nominations. We've seen what BHO's nominees look like, there's NO WAY Mittens could do worse, and he has financial constituencies which will influence him to do better.

Vote for whichever party makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside for every other office. YOUR GUNS want you to vote Mitt Romney for President.

This. /thread.

hoffmang
06-08-2012, 6:26 PM
From a legal work perspective, in re the legal work CGF and other legal orgs such as SAF, it's safer for us to assume an Obama win in terms of determining our directions of legal work. The whole, "never make your plan with the rosy path, always use the worst one" thing.

And people wonder why we've been in such a d*mn hurry.

-Gene

kcbrown
06-08-2012, 6:51 PM
I can sympathize with the sentiment, but this is such a load of BS. If everybody did this you'd end up with a BHO or dem president every time.


... because most people actually want BHO or a dem president?


The approach you're responding to works only when the majority vote for whomever they actually prefer. But that's not what currently happens. I expect most people vote for whomever they dislike the least and who they believe is "electable". Which is to say, everyone is looking around to see who everyone else thinks is "electable" as part of the decision making process, and the end result is that it's dirt simple to manipulate when you have control over the press.


It's a bootstrapping issue, and the problem is that there's no way to get there from here. You have to somehow simultaneously convince everyone to vote for the person they truly believe in the most, regardless of how "electable" they perceive them to be. And that's simply not possible without control over the press.

As such, we are doomed to continue forever down the path we've forged for ourselves.

Given that, once the primaries are up, you most certainly are better off voting for the least objectionable "electable" candidate, because that's most certainly what everyone else is going to be doing. And for us, that means voting for Romney regardless of who else is in the running.


Of course, that will have consequences. We may win some of our 2A rights back, but I expect we'll lose at least as much of our 4A/5A rights as we gain back in 2A rights. The 4A/5A outcome is probably no different regardless of which "lesser of two evils" wins, however, so the balance goes to the 2A fight.


It's going to be generations before we have anything close to what we should have in terms of real rights, and even that is a serious longshot. The fact of the matter is that few in this country give a damn about liberty anymore, most especially liberty for others, and they're getting exactly what they want: the warm, suffocating blanket of tyranny instead of the cold, crisp air of liberty.

kcbrown
06-08-2012, 6:54 PM
In the primary, vote for the greatest good. In the general election, vote for the lesser of two evils.

It'd be really cool if we did instant runoff voting like some countries do.

Instant runoff voting is exactly what we now have in California, and yet that is something most around here seem to believe is a bad thing.

And maybe it is. I dunno. What I do know is that we sure as hell weren't getting anywhere with the system we had before. Either the change makes things better, or it makes things worse. If it makes things worse, then maybe that will be enough to push this state entirely over the edge and into the abyss. Either way, it hopefully means the end of California as a viable "socialist utopian" state.

ubet
06-08-2012, 7:12 PM
Our founding fathers were BRILLIANT MEN! Their foresight and the ability to create such an amazing document, that has formed one of the greatest countries known to Man is something to be in awe of. Their is one flaw in our Constitution, and how we go about voting for POTUS and Governors.

For as brilliant as they were, I dont think they could invision the amount of uneducated populous as we have today. The electoral college is a great thing. But they should have gone one step further with it (and I think they tried to by originally saying that only land owners could vote). What they should have set up instead of that is that our elections would be held on a county level, then a state. Where each county has one delegate, no matter the size, whoever wins that county get one vote for that state. Then have the states delegates either winner take all, or a split vote (I am not sure which is better) to go to the electoral college. My thinking behind this is, that no one part of the state can control the state as we see here in Ca, and across the USA.

Urban areas control the vote, and rural places are left to the dogs. If we had a system like I described, Modoc County would have the same say as SF County, and Glenn county would have the same vote as LA County.

By doing this it seems to me, our country would be more in tune with the MASS of the country, not the populous. And from my understanding of how the Constitution was written, they wanted the mass of the country to have the say, not the populous. It would be a truer form of Republic. We would still have a VERY conservative country, and not be controlled by cities like Chicago, LA, SF, NY, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta and all the other **** holes that we have as a country.

Thats just my off topic 2 cents.

k1dude
06-08-2012, 8:18 PM
Our founding fathers were BRILLIANT MEN! Their foresight and the ability to create such an amazing document, that has formed one of the greatest countries known to Man is something to be in awe of. Their is one flaw in our Constitution, and how we go about voting for POTUS and Governors.

For as brilliant as they were, I dont think they could invision the amount of uneducated populous as we have today. The electoral college is a great thing. But they should have gone one step further with it (and I think they tried to by originally saying that only land owners could vote). What they should have set up instead of that is that our elections would be held on a county level, then a state. Where each county has one delegate, no matter the size, whoever wins that county get one vote for that state. Then have the states delegates either winner take all, or a split vote (I am not sure which is better) to go to the electoral college. My thinking behind this is, that no one part of the state can control the state as we see here in Ca, and across the USA.

Urban areas control the vote, and rural places are left to the dogs. If we had a system like I described, Modoc County would have the same say as SF County, and Glenn county would have the same vote as LA County.

By doing this it seems to me, our country would be more in tune with the MASS of the country, not the populous. And from my understanding of how the Constitution was written, they wanted the mass of the country to have the say, not the populous. It would be a truer form of Republic. We would still have a VERY conservative country, and not be controlled by cities like Chicago, LA, SF, NY, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta and all the other **** holes that we have as a country.

Thats just my off topic 2 cents.

Hear! Hear!

dantodd
06-08-2012, 8:29 PM
Urban areas control the vote, and rural places are left to the dogs. If we had a system like I described, Modoc County would have the same say as SF County, and Glenn county would have the same vote as LA County.

By doing this it seems to me, our country would be more in tune with the MASS of the country, not the populous. And from my understanding of how the Constitution was written, they wanted the mass of the country to have the say, not the populous.

no. They provided for a bicameral legislature so that both "the people" and "the states" would have a say. I agree that it would be good if our state had a similar structure. But, it doesn't work that way.

ubet
06-08-2012, 8:38 PM
no. They provided for a bicameral legislature so that both "the people" and "the states" would have a say. I agree that it would be good if our state had a similar structure. But, it doesn't work that way.

I was talking strictly on electing Governors and POTUS.

Yes, each state should have its own electoral college for governor too.

uyoga
06-09-2012, 11:53 AM
Like it or not, the fact is that a vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for 0bama -do the math!

Kid Stanislaus
06-09-2012, 2:48 PM
In the primary election you would be correct. In a general election you are dead wrong. Doing it your way lead to Bill Clinton. Remember Ross Perot? Once the primary is settled and the general election is on, you have to choose a side.

No truer words have been spoken. Those who are most sucessful in the political ream are those who suck it up and take half a loaf rather than no bread at all.;)

HBrebel
06-09-2012, 2:59 PM
'shall not be infringed' there is no way to interpret this to fit the whim of whomever from whatever party. Just as we are not allowed to jump in a cop car and go driving, or just walk in and ask our own questions of a presidential candidate, nobody but nobody has the authority to redefine or translate the second amendment. It was written by the feds and approved by the states, there is no question as to what it means. Any infringement of the second amendment is a direct violation and should be punishable

wireless
06-09-2012, 3:06 PM
Romney has my vote. It scares me to think what obama could do with the supreme court. It's really, really scary actually.

I don't worry so much about winning my 2A rights as much as losing my 4A rights. 2A rights will come, so it seems, but removing my 4A rights just gives them more power to take away my other rights.

I know that might sound a bit contradicting, but I see us winning some 2A rights in the next 1-3 years the way things have been going. But what's really scary, is 15 years down the road when some 2A cases get taken to SCOTUS and Obama's appointees are in office.


Reminds me of this country in Europe in 1931 that everyone disliked...hmmm :whistling:

Mofo-Kang
06-09-2012, 3:44 PM
If Obama wins, kiss the nation as we knew it goodbye. The court will likely be stacked for several decades by communists that abhor the Constitution and our founding fathers. Say goodbye to your firearms. It's that simple.

Do you guys really think this kind of rhetoric is helpful in persuading people to support the GOP and/or gun rights? I'm honestly curious about this.

wireless
06-09-2012, 3:50 PM
Exactly^.


I honestly don't think romey is much different than obama. They both want to give a certain group of people one set of rights so they can trick them into taking away more rights.

Obama- gay marriage take away everything else
Romney- gun rights take away everything else


The end results the same thing. That's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson the libertarian candidate. I also realize I am 21 so I might see some gun rights in my life time that many of you in your late 40's, early 50's won't see.

Mofo-Kang
06-09-2012, 4:02 PM
For as brilliant as they were, I dont think they could invision the amount of uneducated populous as we have today.

The population was far less educated back then than it is today.


By doing this it seems to me, our country would be more in tune with the MASS of the country, not the populous. And from my understanding of how the Constitution was written, they wanted the mass of the country to have the say, not the populous. It would be a truer form of Republic.

They saw both sides of the argument, which is why we have a House of Representatives made up of members who are locally elected and serve short terms (so they're on a short leash with their constituents), and this House is balanced by the Senate, which was originally made of members elected by each state legislature, serving for long terms so that they're not as influenced by ever-changing popular opinions. The House is also made up of numerous members from small localities--big states have a lot of Representatives, and could run roughshod over the smaller states because of it. To balance that, again, the Senate is there with 2 members from each state, regardless of the state's size.

The whole thing is a balancing act. No, the people in New York shouldn't be able to tell the people in Massachusetts how to do things. But on the other hand, there's way more people in New York than Massachusetts, and we tend to believe in majority rule, at least within some limits and in some areas of life. So we balance those two viewpoints by having a generally majority-rules House with a everyone-gets-an-equal-say Senate.

loose_electron
06-09-2012, 5:13 PM
Calling loose electron, come in loose electron...we have a situation here...

:sleeping:

Hm?

You expect Romney to stand up for the 2A?
Romney stands up for what gets him the most votes.
The man says whatever it takes to get votes.

I have said it many times - We got state level 2A issues
a lot more than we got federal 2A issues.

If you want to make this whole issue a total non-issue,
then you got to win the culture war, not the election of
the Etch-A-Sketch man.

Winning the culture war?

Help make as many people as possible comfortable around guns.
Take multiple friends to the range, teach them about shooting,
firearms safety, shooting sports, and a well trained acceptance
of personal protection.

Leave the politics, red-blue arguments, and the "us against them"
childishness at home.

Teach people that guns are not what they see in Hollywood and
TV cop shows.

Be friendly and positive about the topic. Don't alienate them with
"the world is against us" junk, and political rants.

You make the majority of the population comfortable with the topic
and the politics and protecting the 2A with lawyers totally becomes a
non-issue.

In the last year I have taken 8 (maybe 11) people who have
never touched a gun shooting and gotten them comfortable with
the whole thing.

You want to make friends, not try to control enemies.

Think about that.

stix213
06-09-2012, 5:34 PM
:sleeping:

Hm?

You expect Romney to stand up for the 2A?
Romney stands up for what gets him the most votes.
The man says whatever it takes to get votes.

I have said it many times - We got state level 2A issues
a lot more than we got federal 2A issues.

If you want to make this whole issue a total non-issue,
then you got to win the culture war, not the election of
the Etch-A-Sketch man.

Winning the culture war?

Help make as many people as possible comfortable around guns.
Take multiple friends to the range, teach them about shooting,
firearms safety, shooting sports, and a well trained acceptance
of personal protection.

Leave the politics, red-blue arguments, and the "us against them"
childishness at home.

Teach people that guns are not what they see in Hollywood and
TV cop shows.

Be friendly and positive about the topic. Don't alienate them with
"the world is against us" junk, and political rants.

You make the majority of the population comfortable with the topic
and the politics and protecting the 2A with lawyers totally becomes a
non-issue.

In the last year I have taken 8 (maybe 11) people who have
never touched a gun shooting and gotten them comfortable with
the whole thing.

You want to make friends, not try to control enemies.

Think about that.

Romney doesn't need to stand up for the 2A. The congress is unlikely to send him any anti-gun laws for him to decide on. All that matters is SCOTUS appointments, which are not possible to be worse than Obama's.

bandook
06-09-2012, 10:33 PM
Lets not forget that California turned 'D' only with Clinton's election. Prior to that, going back to 1952, the Republicans lost California only once.

I don't think Romney can win California especially with our 'I'll write in my vote for Donald Duck' crowd, but IMO he can make it interesting.

k1dude
06-09-2012, 10:48 PM
Do you guys really think this kind of rhetoric is helpful in persuading people to support the GOP and/or gun rights? I'm honestly curious about this.

Yes.

dantodd
06-10-2012, 6:12 AM
You expect Romney to stand up for the 2A?
Romney stands up for what gets him the most votes.
The man says whatever it takes to get votes.


Romney is no friend of the 2A. BUT, as you said, he will do what it takes to get elected and being pro-2A is a prerequisite for republican electability. He will certainly not do harm to the 2A as this administration has, particularly administratively through the ATF.


I have said it many times - We got state level 2A issues a lot more than we got federal 2A issues.

Yes, a keeping it that way via elections is much easier than waiting u til it requires even more lawsuits.




Help make as many people as possible comfortable around guns.
Take multiple friends to the range, teach them about shooting,
firearms safety, shooting sports, and a well trained acceptance
of personal protection.

Leave the politics, red-blue arguments, and the "us against them"
childishness at home.

Teach people that guns are not what they see in Hollywood and
TV cop shows.

Be friendly and positive about the topic. Don't alienate them with
"the world is against us" junk, and political rants.

You make the majority of the population comfortable with the topic
and the politics and protecting the 2A with lawyers totally becomes a
non-issue.


While those are good and important ideas your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. There is a reason we still have civil rights attorneys in spite of most people being on board with racial equality and free speech....


You want to make friends, not try to control enemies.


We need to do both. As much as making guns and the gun culture "normal" we must also create an environment where anti-gunners are viewed with the same disdain as racists and bigots.

ubet
06-10-2012, 6:55 AM
Mofa king, you really think we are more educated today? Have you talked to any of the "youts" out there?

People are more worried about American idol and the Kardashians than what's going on politically. Go ask someone to name all 9 SCOTUS judges and where they fall on political issues. Or ask them about the crisis of the euro and the effect it will have on us.

People in 17xx might have not gone to much school, but were a hell of a lot more articulate and in tune with what was going on. People used to read a lot more and craved information.

People know a days are generally blooming idiots. I would HATE to see what these morons (even the most educated) would come up with for a constitution today. :shutter:

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Demonicspire
06-10-2012, 10:58 AM
Well I'd hate for this to devolve into the inevitable binaries (one side good, one side evil) remember that the two parties are essentially the same. Yes, dems are less friendly to gun control than repubs, which is the issue here. Will a dem justice necessarily be against gun control? No. Will a repub justice be necessarily for gun control? Also no. Also remember the justices have to be confirmed, and the republicans have the majority in both houses now.

Also we are a TON safer now that they've incorporated the 2nd amendment. Just keep strong and keep speaking out. Honestly I want Scalia gone. Have you ever read his stuff? This guy HATES the 4th ammendment.

SilverTauron
06-10-2012, 11:23 AM
Mofa king, you really think we are more educated today? Have you talked to any of the "youts" out there?

People are more worried about American idol and the Kardashians than what's going on politically. Go ask someone to name all 9 SCOTUS judges and where they fall on political issues. Or ask them about the crisis of the euro and the effect it will have on us.

People know a days are generally blooming idiots. I would HATE to see what these morons (even the most educated) would come up with for a constitution today. :shutter:

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Based on my contact with the current college students in America,the U.S. Constitution's days are numbered. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but all of them.

Brass tacks, the next generation of brain-dead voters grew up during 9/11 and its fallout.My peers are so pro-conformity its scary;the idea of terrorist watch lists, exceptions to Habeus Corpus , suspension of the right to a speedy trial, and so on aren't considered violations of law so much as "doing what's gotta be done". Should the disarmament lobby shift gears and sell the image of the American gun owner as a terrorist -something the media has been doing for ages in one form or another-the politicians will have a free hand to turn America into the UK.

In our politically correct society if people were offered a direct choice between freedom and security ,most will choose the latter.The concept of a nation whose government is subservient to its citizens is a historical abberation;perhaps human nature as a whole is contrary to the practice of individual liberty, but its a topic for another time.

Demonicspire
06-10-2012, 11:24 AM
Based on my contact with the current college students in America,the U.S. Constitution's days are numbered. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but all of them.

Brass tacks, the next generation of brain-dead voters grew up during 9/11 and its fallout.My peers are so pro-conformity its scary;the idea of terrorist watch lists, exceptions to Habeus Corpus , suspension of the right to a speedy trial, and so on aren't considered violations of law so much as "doing what's gotta be done". Should the disarmament lobby shift gears and sell the image of the American gun owner as a terrorist -something the media has been doing for ages in one form or another-the politicians will have a free hand to turn America into the UK.

In our politically correct society if people were offered a direct choice between freedom and security ,most will choose the latter.The concept of a nation whose government is subservient to its citizens is a historical abberation;perhaps human nature as a whole is contrary to the practice of individual liberty, but its a topic for another time.
Where do you live? I can't go ten feet around here without seeing something pissy about government "9/11 was a conspiracy" "ron paul 2012" etc etc etc.

loose_electron
06-10-2012, 11:32 AM
Also remember the justices have to be confirmed, and the republicans have the majority in both houses now.


SCOTUS appointments are made by POTUS and confirmed by the US Senate.

GOP controls the House right now, Dems control the Senate and executive branches. The House has nothing (directly) to do with SCOTUS appointments.

A Senate filibuster can be used to block a SCOTUS appointment unless there is a supermajority (60) on one side of the issue.

So, the minority party can block SCOTUS appointments. That has happened a number of times in the history of the process.

Demonicspire
06-10-2012, 11:33 AM
SCOTUS appointments are made by POTUS and confirmed by the US Senate.

GOP controls the House right now, Dems control the Senate and executive branches. The House has nothing (directly) to do with SCOTUS appointments.

A Senate filibuster can be used to block a SCOTUS appointment unless there is a supermajority (60) on one side of the issue.

So, the minority party can block SCOTUS appointments. That has happened a number of times in the history of the process.

yeah you have the right of it, I wasn't putting much thought into my answer, but my point still stands that a confirmation hearing can make appointing someone who leans too strongly one way difficult.

loose_electron
06-10-2012, 11:35 AM
Romney is no friend of the 2A. BUT, as you said, he will do what it takes to get elected and being pro-2A is a prerequisite for republican electability.

I think republican nomination is more accurate.

The general populace usually does not care about the 2A issue, so its generally not a front and center issue in the general election.

loose_electron
06-10-2012, 11:36 AM
yeah you have the right of it, I wasn't putting much thought into my answer, but my point still stands that a confirmation hearing can make appointing someone who leans too strongly one way difficult.

Yup, totally agree!

dantodd
06-10-2012, 11:43 AM
I think republican nomination is more accurate.

The general populace usually does not care about the 2A issue, so its generally not a front and center issue in the general election.

And getting general election R turn out? What about in 4 years if he wins? I doubt guns (or much of anything else) are an important issue to Romney. He will do what it takes to stay in power and be "relatively" powerful. For any Republican this means not pissing off the NRA. The presidency isn't like the mayor of NYC where Bloomberg could run as a republican but govern as a democrat and not have legislative or electoral repercussions.

k1dude
06-10-2012, 12:47 PM
yeah you have the right of it, I wasn't putting much thought into my answer, but my point still stands that a confirmation hearing can make appointing someone who leans too strongly one way difficult.

Then how do you explain Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan? They are as far left as possible. There is no moderation in their thinking or history. They openly express their disdain for the Constitution which they were sworn to uphold and protect.

The problem is conservatives have rarely stood in the way of liberal's nominees despite their extremist histories. The reverse is not true. Liberals have almost ALWAYS vigorously opposed conservative's nominees. And the conservative nominees are usually considered far more moderate than anyone the left puts up for the court.

loose_electron
06-10-2012, 1:43 PM
As far left as possible?

Hardly the case, Extremists and fanatics would not make it though the process.

If you think they are the fringe left then you haven't dealt with the extremes.
But then some people here like to call everyone here that doesn't agree with their perspective a communist.

(shrugs...)

hoffmang
06-10-2012, 3:58 PM
The party in power holds great sway over the "president's" Supreme Court nominations. See the failure of Harriet Meirs' nomination. I think everyone who cares about firearms civil rights can agree that the person nominated after hers was withdrawn was a plus for this cause.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
06-10-2012, 4:19 PM
The party in power holds great sway over the "president's" Supreme Court nominations. See the failure of Harriet Meirs' nomination. I think everyone who cares about firearms civil rights can agree that the person nominated after hers was withdrawn was a plus for this cause.

-Gene

For the folks who weren't paying attention in class, that would be Samuel Alito, aka "Machine Gun Sammy".

vincewarde
06-10-2012, 7:28 PM
1) The next presidents last name will be Obama or Romney. No one else has a chance.

2) Romney may appoint anti - 2nd Amendment judges - but it is unlikely, Obama WILL APPOINT such judges. One conservative resignation, or death will spell the end and force us to try to amend the Constitution to get our rights back.

Therefore:

3) A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote against the 2nd Amendment

BTW, if Pres. Obama's implosion (there was serious talk last week about California being in play - not at a likely, but possible if the economy tanks) continues much longer, don't be surprised if one or more SCOTUS justices resign so he can ram their replacements through the Senate before the end of the year.

dantodd
06-10-2012, 7:53 PM
BTW, if Pres. Obama's implosion (there was serious talk last week about California being in play - not at a likely, but possible if the economy tanks) continues much longer, don't be surprised if one or more SCOTUS justices resign so he can ram their replacements through the Senate before the end of the year.

It may be hard to get cloture on one nominee that goes up after September 1. I can't imagine that 2 would get acted upon in that timeframe.

Meplat
06-10-2012, 8:23 PM
:chris: Dont worry, it concerns me too!

What frightens me is why anyone would be thinking about Ruth Ginsburg in the shower.

Mofo-Kang
06-10-2012, 8:26 PM
Yes.

Really? Blatant, transparent lies and crude insults that a high school kid that passed his civic class can see right through are going to support the cause, here? That's the plan?

kcbrown
06-10-2012, 8:30 PM
Romney is no friend of the 2A. BUT, as you said, he will do what it takes to get elected and being pro-2A is a prerequisite for republican electability.


No, claiming to be pro-2A is a prerequisite for republican electability.

Actually being pro-2A isn't.

That said, if he wants two terms, he'll be pro-2A during the first term, and that may be the term that matters the most here.



He will certainly not do harm to the 2A as this administration has, particularly administratively through the ATF.


One would hope. However, do we have any evidence that ATF was considerably more "pro gun" during Bush's tenure (aside from Fast and Furious, at least)? I expect we do, but I don't know how anti-gun ATF was during Bush's tenure. As far as I know, ATF has always been anti-gun from the start.

Furthermore, Morrison England, the judge who handed us a district loss in Richards v Prieto, was nominated by GWB.

No, the primary reason for voting for Romney is that Obama is a known bad quantity, while Romney is not quite as well-known (there seem to be multiple interpretations of his past voting record).



We need to do both. As much as making guns and the gun culture "normal" we must also create an environment where anti-gunners are viewed with the same disdain as racists and bigots.

That's going to be much harder for us than it was for the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement got the national media, which was probably neutral on the subject previously, on its side (most certainly once it saw there was a major story to be told -- showing the controversy made for good press, and the press was much less sensational and more concerned about real journalism at the time). We have the national media against us. Furthermore, the injustice the civil rights movement was fighting against was comparatively easy to show, because the injustices were direct and visible ("whites only" areas clearly marked, blacks being beaten, etc.). The injustice we fight against is hard to show: how do you show the injustice of not being allowed to carry firearms?

No, what the civil rights movement was able to accomplish by gaining the sympathy of the press, we're going to have to accomplish directly through word of mouth and other "underground" forms of communication. Not only will the mainstream media not help us, they will continue to oppose us, because they are controlled by people who fear firearms in the hands of the general population.

jaymz
06-10-2012, 8:35 PM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

Normally I would agree with you, but at this point in time, there"s too much to lose by risking Obama being re-elected. Everyone needs to vote Romney.

kcbrown
06-10-2012, 8:41 PM
And getting general election R turn out? What about in 4 years if he wins? I doubt guns (or much of anything else) are an important issue to Romney. He will do what it takes to stay in power and be "relatively" powerful. For any Republican this means not pissing off the NRA. The presidency isn't like the mayor of NYC where Bloomberg could run as a republican but govern as a democrat and not have legislative or electoral repercussions.

Why not? Obama was able to run as a democrat but govern as a republican (at least with respect to the 4th Amendment and the various policies Bush put into place and which Obama has further expanded upon).

Getting into office merely means saying the right things. What is done afterwards is almost entirely irrelevant. Were that not the case, Obama would have no chance at all of being reelected. Instead, his chances are substantial.

dantodd
06-10-2012, 8:55 PM
One would hope. However, do we have any evidence that ATF was considerably more "pro gun" during Bush's tenure (aside from Fast and Furious, at least)? I expect we do, but I don't know how anti-gun ATF was during Bush's tenure. As far as I know, ATF has always been anti-gun from the start.


Trying to redefine certain shotguns out of "sporting use" class.
Attempting to stop used military brass to be reloaded on the secondary market
Requiring the reporting of multi-gun purchases to the ATF.
Denying the repatriation of WWII Korean weapons etc. etc. etc.

There are many examples of the administration being actively anti-gun above and beyond Obama's voting record and his statements.

The lack of such a tivities alone suggests that W's administration was, at the very least, not threatening to our 2A rights.


It is an excellent analog to Jerry Brown's AG tenure. Not actively moving against us is far superior to being actively antagonistic.

dantodd
06-10-2012, 8:58 PM
Why not? Obama was able to run as a democrat but govern as a republican (at least with respect to the 4th Amendment and the various policies Bush put into place and which Obama has further expanded upon).


I thought you were smart enough to not fall into the trap of making such things partisan. Violating the 4th amendment is about statist vs. freedom loving not R vs. D. The patriot act vote didn't go down along party lines nor did reauthorizarion.

kcbrown
06-10-2012, 8:59 PM
What frightens me is why anyone would be thinking about Ruth Ginsburg in the shower.

Who, this?

http://cdn.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/04/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-young.jpg


Kinda looks like another seriously anti-gun woman we know, but who most people regard as being attractive, at least...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Kamala_Harris_Official_Attorney_General_Photo.jpg/400px-Kamala_Harris_Official_Attorney_General_Photo.jpg


It's a real shame that there's no correlation between looks and regard for rights.

kcbrown
06-10-2012, 9:02 PM
Trying to redefine certain shotguns out of "sporting use" class.
Attempting to stop used military brass to be reloaded on the secondary market
Requiring the reporting of multi-gun purchases to the ATF.
Denying the repatriation of WWII Korean weapons etc. etc. etc.


Those were the kinds of things I was looking for. Thanks.

ATF did nothing like that under GWB's administration?



It is an excellent analog to Jerry Brown's AG tenure. Not actively moving against us is far superior to being actively antagonistic.

Yep, no question about that at all.

dantodd
06-10-2012, 9:13 PM
Those were the kinds of things I was looking for. Thanks.

ATF did nothing like that under GWB's administration?


Not all of those are ATF. It is more of a pattern within the executive branch. We have evidence that Obama has been antagonistic to our rights. While I will not claim Romney will champion them I do believe he will, at worst, ignore the issue. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Even if he is, at worst, the same as Obama in his administration's actions against the 2A one place he can't afford to slack is in SCOTUS appointments.

So, in the absolute worst case scenario we have a president who has to satiate the right in a SCOTUS appointment vs. one who has to satisfy the left.

Most likely we have one who is going to largely ignore the 2A while paying lip service.

In the best case scenario we get a president who is mildly pro-gun to keep the right satisfied.

Meplat
06-10-2012, 9:46 PM
..........and not be controlled by cities like Chicago, LA, SF, NY, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta and all the other **** holes that we have as a country.

Thats just my off topic 2 cents.

You have just named 7 good reasons for the continued existence of atomic weapons.

Meplat
06-10-2012, 9:52 PM
no. They provided for a bicameral legislature so that both "the people" and "the states" would have a say. I agree that it would be good if our state had a similar structure. But, it doesn't work that way.


It once did. And you can trace our decline directly back to the time when 'one man one vote' was instituted and our state senate became essentially a redundant assembly. That's when it all started going to ****.

dantodd
06-10-2012, 9:58 PM
It once did. And you can trace our decline directly back to the time when 'one man one vote' was instituted and our state senate became essentially a redundant assembly. That's when it all started going to ****.

I didn't know that our state senate was once a representation of the counties rather than adon population. Sure wish we still had that check and balance in the state.

Meplat
06-10-2012, 9:59 PM
Do you guys really think this kind of rhetoric is helpful in persuading people to support the GOP and/or gun rights? I'm honestly curious about this.


Truth hurts don't it?

Meplat
06-10-2012, 10:04 PM
The population was far less educated back then than it is today.
True, but, the problem is not how much they know; it's how much of what they know is wrong.



They saw both sides of the argument, which is why we have a House of Representatives made up of members who are locally elected and serve short terms (so they're on a short leash with their constituents), and this House is balanced by the Senate, which was originally made of members elected by each state legislature, serving for long terms so that they're not as influenced by ever-changing popular opinions. The House is also made up of numerous members from small localities--big states have a lot of Representatives, and could run roughshod over the smaller states because of it. To balance that, again, the Senate is there with 2 members from each state, regardless of the state's size.

The whole thing is a balancing act. No, the people in New York shouldn't be able to tell the people in Massachusetts how to do things. But on the other hand, there's way more people in New York than Massachusetts, and we tend to believe in majority rule, at least within some limits and in some areas of life. So we balance those two viewpoints by having a generally majority-rules House with a everyone-gets-an-equal-say Senate.

So, why can we not have the same thing in CA.

Gray Peterson
06-10-2012, 10:20 PM
True, but, the problem is not how much they know; it's how much of what they know is wrong.

So, why can we not have the same thing in CA.

Because the 14th amendment says so. The only reason "One Man One Vote" didn't happen at the national levels with the US Senate is because the US Constitutional spells out how Senators are numbered and selected. It is beyond the court's power.

This is all sour grapes and off topic.

Sealawyer
06-10-2012, 10:53 PM
This is why we all, if necessary, must walk across broken glass, barefoot, through a firefight with Black Panthers and Nation of Islam supporters, and fight thru SEIU thugs, to get to a poll and vote Republican on November 6th.

Kavey
06-11-2012, 1:24 AM
The party in power holds great sway over the "president's" Supreme Court nominations. See the failure of Harriet Meirs' nomination. I think everyone who cares about firearms civil rights can agree that the person nominated after hers was withdrawn was a plus for this cause.

-Gene

If Romney wins the presidency in November, if the Republicans take the Senate with a majority and if the Republicans keep the House (a lot of if's I know), wouldn't it be possible to impeach Sotomayor?

She did answer a direct question during her Senate confirmation hearing concerning her opinion of the Heller decision. She emphatically said that she considered the Heller decision to be a "…settled law." She was not vague nor did she vacillate. She was quite clear.

But then in McDonald v Chicago, Sotomayor signed Breyer's dissenting opinion in which he said that Heller, "... needed to be revisited." In other words, Breyer does not consider Heller to be "…settled law". By signing his dissenting opinion, doesn't Sotomayor admit to lying to a Senate committee?

I know that even if the election goes well for us, it likely won't go well enough to politically to allow for impeaching a Supreme Court Justice. But, then again, look what happened in November 2010 and recently in Wisconsin. Maybe?

What I would like to know from those of you with actual legal training and or legal experience is this: Is Sotomayor's blatant lie to a Senate committee concerning her opinion about the Heller decision sufficient enough to meet the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" standard?

And, from those of you (that's many of you) more politically astute than myself, I would like to know the following: With Romney in the White House (I know he has no vote in this but he does appoint the replacement), Republicans in control of Congress with 67 potential votes in the Senate (made up of a Republican majority with a few Democrats) would the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and other national pro-gun groups have the collective courage to demand impeachment of Sotomayer?

Well, I can dream can't I?

But, it wasn't very many years ago that a decision like Heller was just a dream too. Right?

dantodd
06-11-2012, 1:37 AM
Because the 14th amendment says so. The only reason "One Man One Vote" didn't happen at the national levels with the US Senate is because the US Constitutional spells out how Senators are numbered and selected. It is beyond the court's power.


If that were true wouldn't the 14th amendment prohibit winner-take-all distribution of each state's electoral votes as most states use?

Meplat
06-11-2012, 9:07 AM
But, it wasn't very many years ago that a decision like Heller was just a dream too. Right?

And Unless we get Rid of Obummer and retake the senate. Such things will be just a dream again, for many years to come.

Bhobbs
06-11-2012, 9:26 AM
Normally I would agree with you, but at this point in time, there"s too much to lose by risking Obama being re-elected. Everyone needs to vote Romney.

This is California. Obama will win. California is a winner take all state. Voting for anyone other than Obama is a wasted vote. Repeat this over and over and over again in your head.

I'm going to waste my vote. I haven't decided if it will be on Romney or someone else.

ubet
06-11-2012, 11:30 AM
This is California. Obama will win. California is a winner take all state. Voting for anyone other than Obama is a wasted vote. Repeat this over and over and over again in your head.

I'm going to waste my vote. I haven't decided if it will be on Romney or someone else.

I dont know, obummer might not win in Ca. Even in this communist stronghold, I think people can see what he and his policies have done to ruin the country.

Gray Peterson
06-11-2012, 11:31 AM
If that were true wouldn't the 14th amendment prohibit winner-take-all distribution of each state's electoral votes as most states use?

No, electoral college.

dfletcher
06-11-2012, 2:21 PM
I dont know, obummer might not win in Ca. Even in this communist stronghold, I think people can see what he and his policies have done to ruin the country.

That he is required to spend time and money here, and in NY for that matter, is a bit of a victory. Time and money are finite in this campaign (well at least time is :p) and when he's campaigning and spending advertising dollars here he's not doing so in VA, OH, FL and so on.

wireless
06-11-2012, 4:14 PM
This is California. Obama will win. California is a winner take all state. Voting for anyone other than Obama is a wasted vote. Repeat this over and over and over again in your head.

I'm going to waste my vote. I haven't decided if it will be on Romney or someone else.



While I agree Obama will win California, you are using the term "waste" like it's a meaningless act. There is nothing meaningless in voting. Even if the other side is likely to win, it's not "wasted".

Bhobbs
06-11-2012, 5:08 PM
While I agree Obama will win California, you are using the term "waste" like it's a meaningless act. There is nothing meaningless in voting. Even if the other side is likely to win, it's not "wasted".

I don't believe voting the way you feel is a waste. I just said that because that's how the person I replied to said it.

Meplat
06-11-2012, 7:07 PM
While I agree Obama will win California, you are using the term "waste" like it's a meaningless act. There is nothing meaningless in voting. Even if the other side is likely to win, it's not "wasted".

You fight because you are right. Not because you are going to win! Where would we be if the defenders of Lexington Green had refused to fight unless they were assured of victory?

But you do need to carefully pick the hills you are willing to die on. The defeat of Obummer is a hill I will happily defend to the death. Romney? Well, we can deal with that later.

kcbrown
06-11-2012, 9:55 PM
While I agree Obama will win California, you are using the term "waste" like it's a meaningless act. There is nothing meaningless in voting. Even if the other side is likely to win, it's not "wasted".

People who argue for a vote in favor of the "lesser of two evils" argue that any other vote is wasted, because the vote goes towards someone who cannot win.

You cannot argue that and, simultaneously, argue that a vote for anyone other than the sure winner (when there is a sure winner, as is the case with Obama in California) is not a wasted vote, precisely because the justification for the vote being wasted is the same, namely that the person you're voting for has no chance of winning.


So which is it? Is a vote for the guy who cannot win wasted or not?

wireless
06-11-2012, 10:08 PM
Yeah. I completely disagree. I was about to type out this long thing, but I'm deciding against it.

No matter who you vote for it isn't wasted. I don't know how anyone could believe otherwise.

Just because someone most likely won't win, doesn't mean the votes wasted. You are still standing tall for what you believe in. What's the alternative? vote for the person you don't like or maybe sit on your *** and not vote at all? Those two options seem like the biggest waste to me.

kcbrown
06-11-2012, 10:44 PM
Yeah. I completely disagree. I was about to type out this long thing, but I'm deciding against it.

No matter who you vote for it isn't wasted. I don't know how anyone could believe otherwise.

Just because someone most likely won't win, doesn't mean the votes wasted. You are still standing tall for what you believe in. What's the alternative? vote for the person you don't like or maybe sit on your *** and not vote at all? Those two options seem like the biggest waste to me.

Yep.

That said, I'm going to vote for Romney in the main presidential race anyway, knowing that it's a wasted vote, as a hedge against the remote possibility that he might win California. His chance of winning is essentially nil, but the chance of anyone else winning is even less.

No, it won't send a message. No, it won't do any good. It's strictly a hedge and nothing more.

k1dude
06-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Really? Blatant, transparent lies and crude insults that a high school kid that passed his civic class can see right through are going to support the cause, here? That's the plan?

Lies? Insults? Your high school indoctrination by leftist teachers did you no favors in your civics class. And that's a big part of the problem.

Don't presume to tell me who and what a communist is. I lived under communism and my family escaped with our very lives from communism. We lost almost EVERYTHING but our lives. You live here in the US in your little insulated shell spouting all sorts of nonesense and HAVE NO F**KING CLUE what the hell you're talking about.

This once great nation is being destroyed from within by imbedded communists in media, government, and education while all of you fat, lazy, pampered citizens fiddle away watching American Idol. The same thing is happening here that happened where I came from and NO ONE is doing a damn thing about it. You keep voting for it for Chissakes!!! My family is petrified and we feel like we're living through "Groundhog Day." You're about to lose your vaunted Republic and you don't even care. One day you'll wake up and it's gone. And you'll wonder what the hell happened. I'll tell you exactly what happened. Look in the mirror. You and your ilk passively and actively participated.

As Ayn Rand once said "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." What do you think Obama has been doing? He has been ruling by dictate. His weapons are Executive Orders, appointments without approval of Congress, leaks, treaties, and nationalization. There have been no votes. It has been by force. And what few changes he actually used the vote, it was gladly granted by idiots in Congress and the public. Yes you, the American public, are idiots. You have no idea how good you have it and you're willingly giving it away.

Another quote you should familiarize yourself with is by an American socialist, Norman Thomas. He once said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

You sir, are the problem. I'm sorry if the truth hurts your ever so delicate and sensitive psyche. Grow up and grow some balls and fight for your damn country for once in your life. Use your gray matter before it atrophies. For sooner than you know, it will be too late. My family has been there, done that.

SilverTauron
06-12-2012, 1:06 PM
This once great nation is being destroyed from within by imbedded communists in media, government, and education while all of you fat, lazy, pampered citizens fiddle away watching American Idol. The same thing is happening here that happened where I came from and NO ONE is doing a damn thing about it. You keep voting for it for Chissakes!!! My family is petrified and we feel like we're living through "Groundhog Day." You're about to lose your vaunted Republic and you don't even care. One day you'll wake up and it's gone. And you'll wonder what the hell happened. I'll tell you exactly what happened. Look in the mirror. You and your ilk passively and actively participated.

As Ayn Rand once said "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." What do you think Obama has been doing? He has been ruling by dictate. His weapons are Executive Orders, appointments without approval of Congress, leaks, treaties, and nationalization. There have been no votes. It has been by force. And what few changes he actually used the vote, it was gladly granted by idiots in Congress and the public. Yes you, the American public, are idiots. You have no idea how good you have it and you're willingly giving it away.

Another quote you should familiarize yourself with is by an American socialist, Norman Thomas. He once said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

You sir, are the problem. I'm sorry if the truth hurts your ever so delicate and sensitive psyche. Grow up and grow some balls and fight for your damn country for once in your life. Use your gray matter before it atrophies. For sooner than you know, it will be too late. My family has been there, done that.

"So this is how democracy ends:with applause"

That quote by the character of Padme Amidala is the only positive thing I gained from seeing the last Star Wars prequel movie. Its how all this will play out, eventually:because a majority of Americans already live under socialism and think rural America is under some kind of weird psychosis for not wanting to join the club. California is just one part of the picture-plenty of people in Chicago, New York City, NJ, Baltimore, and other places fully believe that communism is a better alternative to our " backwards and exploitative" capitalist republic. These people believe completely that what Soviet Russia and modern day China screwed up we can somehow get right by sheer luck.


What is one man's unconstitutional infringment is another man's idea of progress. We sit here and condemn expansion of government and gun laws, but for every one of us on this site there are ten souls who believe freedom really is a public safety hazard-and who would vote out the USC as we know it if they could. Its a sad historical record, but looking at the issue that way it would seem that a vast majority of humankind is just fine and dandy with living under a repressive regime as long as they personally don't have to do much thinking.

vincewarde
06-12-2012, 1:07 PM
It may be hard to get cloture on one nominee that goes up after September 1. I can't imagine that 2 would get acted upon in that timeframe.

Yeah, but if it looks real bad for Obama (as it does now - an incumbent who is going to win would typically be much higher than he is now) - I would not be surprised to see one or more liberal justices pull the plug over the summer.

It might be risky - but if a replacement was not confirmed before Romney took over, I am sure they would withdraw their resignation. That could be very interesting......

Gray Peterson
06-12-2012, 1:26 PM
200 million people, and 41 states, treat carrying a firearm for personal protection as normal.

100 million, in 9 states, do not.

How do we lose, again?

bwiese
06-12-2012, 1:27 PM
Romney doesn't need to stand up for the 2A. The congress is unlikely to send him any anti-gun laws for him to decide on. All that matters is SCOTUS appointments, which are not possible to be worse than Obama's.


% THIS, 100%

Other folks just don't get it.

bwiese
06-12-2012, 1:33 PM
Trying to redefine certain shotguns out of "sporting use" class.
Attempting to stop used military brass to be reloaded on the secondary market
Requiring the reporting of multi-gun purchases to the ATF.

Yup.

Denying the repatriation of WWII Korean weapons etc. etc. etc.


There are some separate contractual/ownership issues I recall coming into play that made this far less clear as an actual 'gun' issue.



The lack of such a tivities alone suggests that W's administration was, at the very least, not threatening to our 2A rights.

PLCAA for the win! PLCAA saved the 2nd -if Heller/McDonald hadn't come around. We would have been sued out of existence by 2012 if PLCAA hadn't passed.

I will note that GWB specifically extended personal/WH active support for PLCAA passage.



It is an excellent analog to Jerry Brown's AG tenure. Not actively moving against us is far superior to being actively antagonistic.

Yup. Even with a few bad bills he signed, the really bad ones he didn't, and some of these have workarounds.

SilverTauron
06-12-2012, 1:36 PM
200 million people, and 41 states, treat carrying a firearm for personal protection as normal.

100 million, in 9 states, do not.

How do we lose, again?

The 100 million in 9 states believe their cause must be expanded to the other 200 million come hook or crook, out of a warped sense of political obligation.

Meanwhile, the 200 million in 41 states still believe in respecting the other side's choices even if they are dead wrong.

Gray Peterson
06-12-2012, 1:56 PM
The 100 million in 9 states believe their cause must be expanded to the other 200 million come hook or crook, out of a warped sense of political obligation.

Meanwhile, the 200 million in 41 states still believe in respecting the other side's choices even if they are dead wrong.

What gave you the impression those of us in the 200/41 camp respect their camp's (the 100/9's) choice to use their governments to ignore civil rights?

jamesob
06-12-2012, 2:06 PM
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

dont vote for the lesser of the 2 evils? i hope your not serious. in that case don't even vote since the 3rd party has a snowballs chance in hell. right now we need the lesser.

Meplat
06-13-2012, 8:44 AM
Lies? Insults? Your high school indoctrination by leftist teachers did you no favors in your civics class. And that's a big part of the problem.

Don't presume to tell me who and what a communist is. I lived under communism and my family escaped with our very lives from communism. We lost almost EVERYTHING but our lives. You live here in the US in your little insulated shell spouting all sorts of nonesense and HAVE NO F**KING CLUE what the hell you're talking about.

This once great nation is being destroyed from within by imbedded communists in media, government, and education while all of you fat, lazy, pampered citizens fiddle away watching American Idol. The same thing is happening here that happened where I came from and NO ONE is doing a damn thing about it. You keep voting for it for Chissakes!!! My family is petrified and we feel like we're living through "Groundhog Day." You're about to lose your vaunted Republic and you don't even care. One day you'll wake up and it's gone. And you'll wonder what the hell happened. I'll tell you exactly what happened. Look in the mirror. You and your ilk passively and actively participated.

As Ayn Rand once said "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." What do you think Obama has been doing? He has been ruling by dictate. His weapons are Executive Orders, appointments without approval of Congress, leaks, treaties, and nationalization. There have been no votes. It has been by force. And what few changes he actually used the vote, it was gladly granted by idiots in Congress and the public. Yes you, the American public, are idiots. You have no idea how good you have it and you're willingly giving it away.

Another quote you should familiarize yourself with is by an American socialist, Norman Thomas. He once said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

You sir, are the problem. I'm sorry if the truth hurts your ever so delicate and sensitive psyche. Grow up and grow some balls and fight for your damn country for once in your life. Use your gray matter before it atrophies. For sooner than you know, it will be too late. My family has been there, done that.

HEAR! HEAR!

sholling
06-13-2012, 9:35 AM
People who argue for a vote in favor of the "lesser of two evils" argue that any other vote is wasted, because the vote goes towards someone who cannot win.
There was a lot of talk about some states including California switching to a system where the state's EC delegates would be required to vote for whoever receives the majority popular of vote nationally. If that has been actually implemented anywhere then every vote for the 2 main candidates count.

Meplat
06-13-2012, 10:09 PM
There was a lot of talk about some states including California switching to a system where the state's EC delegates would be required to vote for whoever receives the majority popular of vote nationally. If that has been actually implemented anywhere then every vote for the 2 main candidates count.

Folks have been grousing for ever about the Electoral College and how it allows for the election of a president who has not actually won the popular vote; IIRC that has happened only once in our 200+ year history. Without the EC, candidates could disregard the entire rural population of the country. All that would be needed would be to cater to the massed morons of a dozen or so urban centers. People who could not survive beyond the sidewalks would be telling the rest of us how to live. Basically, the whole country would be like CA.!

Direct democracy is mob rule. It is not a sacred cow, but a golden calf.

Gray Peterson
06-14-2012, 12:50 AM
Folks have been grousing for ever about the Electoral College and how it allows for the election of a president who has not actually won the popular vote; IIRC that has happened only once in our 200+ year history. Without the EC, candidates could disregard the entire rural population of the country. All that would be needed would be to cater to the massed morons of a dozen or so urban centers. People who could not survive beyond the sidewalks would be telling the rest of us how to live. Basically, the whole country would be like CA.!

Direct democracy is mob rule. It is not a sacred cow, but a golden calf.

Eh, it's actually happened four times. Copied from infoplease:


In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote—that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes.

In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes, while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be president.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral
votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes.

In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election.


The NPIV plan, or the Amar Plan, is completely constitutional in that it uses the state's inherent powers to select electors.

At the risk of being hit with arrows to the back (or the knee, ha), the statewide popular vote for electors is not something that's actually universal throughout history. In the 1788/1789 Presidential elections:

(a) Only 6 of the 10 states casting electoral votes chose electors by any form of popular vote.
(b) Less than 1.3% of the population voted: the 1790 Census would count a total population of 3.0 million with a free population of 2.4 million and 600,000 slaves in those states casting electoral votes in this election.
(c) Those states that did choose electors by popular vote had widely varying restrictions on suffrage via property requirements.

The current system as it's currently done is not what the framers intended, but it is completely constitutional under the state's inherent power to chose electors. Eventually, all 50 states went to a statewide popular vote determining the state's selection for the electoral college, and that came from a lot of political lobbying throughout the 19th Century.

One can use statistical analysis to get what we want, but the high population elector states (except for Texas for the long term and Florida is toss-up/lean right) are already in the bag for the "left" candidate" anyway. Right now, it's all about swing states, basically 5 of them, while the remaining 45 pretty much get ignored.

What I'm saying is, don't take the current system for granted for the idea that it somehow protects us. It protected gun owners once, in 2000 with the Bush v. Gore election. Don't count on it happening again.