Search found 5 matches

by frankie_the_yankee
Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:41 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings
Replies: 29
Views: 5219

Re: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings

boomerang wrote: Yes. In hindsight I agree. We might be better off today if Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004. RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.

As for your SCOTUS comment, let's talk about that.
First off, all of the cases and voting patterns I analyzed were District or Circuit court cases. And all I did is report the pattern I found. Republican appointees voted or wrote opinions in favor of the individual rights position on the 2A 90% of the time. Democrat appointees voted or wrote opinions against the individual rights position 100% of the time.

That is too much of a difference to ascribe to any sort of coincidence. It can only be due to fundamental differences in judicial philosophy between the justices appointed by Republicans and those appointed by Democrats.
boomerang wrote: More than 75% of the current justices were appointed by Republicans.

More than 75%!!! :shock: That's an overwhelming supermajority. If your RINO theory holds water, we would expect to see an avalanche of rulings overturning socialist, big government legislation. We would expect federal gun laws to be tossed on the scrap heap by the boatload. We would expect Wickard v. Filburn to be reversed. We would expect those staunch conservatives to defend Kelo's home. Instead, the 7-2 Republican-appointed juggernaut has repeatedly ruled for socialism and big government and against the rights of American citizens.
I wouldn't expect anything of the kind.

In the first place, we cannot neglect the firmly established principle of stare decisis. Only dedicated extremists like we had on the Warren Court of the 50's and 60's will throw long-established precedents overboard wholesale. It is more normal for changes and corrections to be made on a more incremental basis.

Secondly, it is quite obvious, in retrospect, to see that the Democrats (or more properly, the Leftists) were much quicker to see what a dedicated SCOTUS majority could accomplish in driving their agenda far beyond anything they could ever get a legislative majority to pass. The Warren Court was an eye opener for them, while the conservatives remained fast asleep for another 10 or 15 years.

So Democrats began to be a lot more careful (albeit quietly, lest the people, especially the conservatives, catch on) in selecting judges both for the lower courts as well as for the SCOTUS. That's why Carter and Clinton appointees can be seen to act much more in lockstep with each other than those of Republican presidents tend to do.
boomerang wrote: I'll tell you what. If, after hearing Heller, SCOTUS rules the Second Amendment is an individual right and a fundamental right, I'm willing to consider the possibility there may be some difference (however small) between the justices McClinton would appoint and those Obama would appoint.
I think it is almost certain they will rule it to be an individual right. Whether it makes it all the way to strict scrutiny is problematic, though I am encouraged by the Respondents' Brief.

But if/when they rule it an individual right, I am expecting it to be 5-4, with ZERO Democrat appointees in the majority.

(I'll admit there's a slight chance that Ginsberg might join the majority, but it's very slim, IMO.)

If the ruling also mandates strict scrutiny, I think there's no chance whatsoever that any Democrat appointee will be on board.

And I also think there is no chance whatsoever that any Democrat appointee to the SCOTUS would rule in our favor in any future case. They might follow binding precedent at the lower court level if they have to, but that's as far as it goes.

Look at how (Democrat-appointed) Judge Weinstein is keeping that junk lawsuit alive in NY against the clear language and intent of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.

Democrat appointees will stop at nothing to push their agenda.
boomerang wrote: If they go a step further and admit the 2A means Americans who have no criminal record have the right possess/carry firearms in all 50 states with no license required, I will publicly apologize, change my signature quote, and promise vote for the Republican candidate in November, no matter who he may be.
Not at issue so it's not gonna happen with the Heller case. And I would strongly doubt if it would happen in any future case. IMO, a "shall issue" license requirement would have no trouble passing a strict scrutiny standard.
boomerang wrote: If they waffle and say a license may be required by a state, but states must give full faith and credit to gun licenses issued by any of the 50 states (just like drivers licenses) that won't change my decision to vote for Paul in March but I might be willing to vote RINO in November.
Not in Heller, but something like this could be realized down the road as further case law is developed.

But just remember that there's no way that any Democrat-appointed judges at either the circuit or SCOTUS levels would ever allow that case law to be developed if there was anything they could possibly do to stop it.
by frankie_the_yankee
Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:45 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings
Replies: 29
Views: 5219

Re: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings

stroo wrote:My problem with McCain on judges is that he is likely to be only marginally better than Hillary or Obama.
1) Marginally better is a lot better than marginally worse.

2) I did a brief analysis a little while back where I reviewed the judicial opinions of judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats on the 3 most significant 2A cases of our times. They were the Emerson case in the 5th Circuit, the Lockyer case in the 9th Circuit, and of course the Parker/Heller case in the DC Circuit.

I suspected I'd find a difference, but what I found shocked even me.

Looking at every opinion and or vote by every judge involved in these cases, I found that judges appointed by Republicans supported the individual rights 2A view approx. 90% of the time.

I also found that judges appointed by Democrats opposed the individual rights 2A view a full 100% of the time.

This difference is too great to be accounted for by any sort of coincidence.

The Democrats know what they are doing when they put judges on the federal bench.

Here's a link to my post if you're interested.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 91#p130491

So if you want judges who can be relied upon to heap trash on the 2A every time they get a chance to do so, without exception, and set legal precedents that will last for the next 100 years, vote for a Democrat president and tell yourself that it doesn't make any real difference.

Believe me, that's exactly what they want you to do.

And once they have wiped out the BOR, they won't care what you think or what you do.
by frankie_the_yankee
Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:01 am
Forum: Federal
Topic: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings
Replies: 29
Views: 5219

Re: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings

boomerang wrote:
frankie_the_yankee wrote:
boomerang wrote:The last seven years has taught me RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.
Do you really think we would be better off today if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004?
Hindsight is 20/20 but yes I do.
So in hindsight, you think Gore/Kerry would have appointed 2 SCOTUS justices that would be greater adherents to the Originalist philosophy than Roberts and Alito? What is in the record of either one of them, or of Republican Senates serving under Democratic presidents (as we had in the 90's under Bill Clinton where people like Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed on routine votes) that would make you think that?
by frankie_the_yankee
Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:25 am
Forum: Federal
Topic: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings
Replies: 29
Views: 5219

Re: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings

boomerang wrote:The last seven years has taught me RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.
Do you really think we would be better off today if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004?

Do you think either one of them would have appointed Alito or Roberts, or anyone remotely like them, to the SCOTUS?

What kind of Heller decision would be be expecting right now with two more Breyers on The Court?
by frankie_the_yankee
Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:03 am
Forum: Federal
Topic: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings
Replies: 29
Views: 5219

Re: McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings

KBCraig wrote:McCain-Feingold lost him (meaning McCain) most any goodwill he had from all the gun groups.

Romney is definitely unfriendly to RKBA, because he is a proponent of "reasonable restrictions" (to borrow from another thread).
I hope the intention was not to borrow from any thread where I may have used the term, or to mis-characterize my use of it as "definitely unfriendly to the RKBA."

Outside of a very narrow fringe of legal and/or constitutional thought,totally unsupported by any sort of case law, everyone is a proponent of "reasonable restrictions". (As a reference I would suggest reading the recently posted Respondents' Brief from the Heller Case.)

So to be more usefully descriptive about Romney, it would help if more descriptive terms were used.

In some of his statements, Romney has indicated that he would be receptive to banning some types of weapons currently not banned if it "turned out" they were shown to be of "unusual leathality". This was on either Meet the Press or Fox News Sunday. Since the "leathality of common small arms is already pretty well known, I took this to mean that he would be receptive to signing bans on this or that type of gun if a gun ban group was able to successfully demonize it. ("Junk guns." "Sniper rifles." etc.)

Of course, through all this he gives lip service to the 2A.

Now McCain is an even finer piece of work. He swears up and down that he supports the RKBA. But he was the main force behind McCain-Feingold, the law that many believe imposed unconstitutional restrictions on political speech. So the thinking is that if he could blithley show such disrespect for the 1st Amendment, why would anyone believe that he would hold the 2nd in high regard?

It is true that Ron Paul has GOA's highest rating. But it is also true that he has about the same chance of becoming POTUS as as Barbara Streisand - probably less chance.

Of course any of these people would be 100 times better than any Democrat currently in the race. So no matter who gets the Republican nomination, gun owners best chance is to vote for them no matter who the Democrat is.

If we let the perfect become the enemy of the good, we will likely get stuck with "the horrible", or "the nightmare" as our reward.

Return to “McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings”