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.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.
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.
I wouldn't expect anything of the kind.boomerang wrote: More than 75% of the current justices were appointed by Republicans.
More than 75%!!! 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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 in Heller, but something like this could be realized down the road as further case law is developed.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.
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.