From TownHall.com:
"The political “hot button” issues of guns and judges have become intertwined in this election year. The fate of both issues will be decided by the candidate we elect as president. Why? Because over a four-year term, that president will likely appoint at least two and possibly three justices to the United States Supreme Court. Simply stated, this year when we elect a president, we will also cast our ballot for the next Supreme Court."
Truer words were never spoken. This election is about the Supreme Court -- even more so than when George Bush was elected in 2000 over Al Gore and again in 2004 over John Kerry.
At this point in time there is no greater opportunity, and no greater threat, to the firearms rights of every mother and father, grandmother and grandfather, housewife and hunter, than right now.
While the choices of McCain, Obama and Clinton do not inspire, they should serve as further material to do one's research as we head toward the November general election."The Second Amendment is the insurance policy on American liberty. And whether you own guns or not, you cannot afford for a single minute to think that it doesn’t matter to you, your family or the security of this country."
Amen.
19 May 2008
Don't Think Of It As Electing A President; Think Of It As Electing A Supreme Court (Scared Yet?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is an excellent point, and a compelling reason to vote democrat in the fall.
Hopefully this will end up being perfect timing - get a good strong 2A ruling out of the current court (which future courts will respect as stare decisis), then get a dem in office so the aging liberal justices can retire and be replaced, and the chipping away of the rest of our civil rights can be stemmed.
Do you, a self-described civil rights activist, really want a right-wing supreme court? If so, you really should narrow your moniker to 2A activist.
The 2A is of paramount importance, but many other civil rights will be eroded over the next couple decades should Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito get a reliable fifth (or even sixth) vote.
A- thanks for writing. No one can tell what the future will hold. But I can tell you this -- with successive past liberal courts, rights were eroded left and right. The very thought of giving up our sovereignty as Ruth Bader Ginsburg has repeatedly endorsed, in order to take in legal philosophy from other nations, is ludicrous. Our laws are based on our Constitution. At issue between conservative and liberal factions of the Court is merely strict interpretation or the theory of a more open, breathing "living" document where one can close their eyes and say -- "presto, this is what it means" without consulting the words.
A- thanks for writing. No one can tell what the future will hold. But I can tell you this -- with successive past liberal courts, rights were eroded left and right. The very thought of giving up our sovereignty as Ruth Bader Ginsburg has repeatedly endorsed, in order to take in legal philosophy from other nations, is ludicrous. Our laws are based on our Constitution. At issue between conservative and liberal factions of the Court is merely strict interpretation or the theory of a more open, breathing "living" document where one can close their eyes and say -- "presto, this is what it means" without consulting the words.
It is SO much more nuanced than that - I'm disappointed by your oversimplification - strict constructionist vs. "liberals."
I'm not going to try to talk you into thinking differently, but if you think "civil rights activist" and "Scalia & Thomas" go together, you are either disingenuous, or very, very confused. You rail against government interference in our RKBA, but what about erosions of 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A rights? Are those disposable, as long as 2A is protected?? Pick one - say 5A, should Ohio be able to take your land and give it to a private developer? Your Court would say that's fine - doesn't sound like strict constructionism to me. What you call originalist just means pro-government rulings, with textualism as the justification when it suits them. That's an oversimplification, but you did it first... :)
Shall we go back to slavery & segregation? Those seem completely fine under the text of the Constitution (and clearly if introduced as legislation, would pass in West Virginia & Kentucky ;).
Only a crazy liberal Supreme Court caused ANY of the bill of rights to apply to the states...
Ok, I said I would not blather on, but I did anyway... It's just a little bit of an exaggeration to trumpet yourself a "civil rights" activist, when your agenda is clearly much more narrow than that! (which I think is FINE by the way, just admit it! at least drop it to civil right activist, not plural)
As always - luv ya Brent! I check in almost every day, and usually (when you stick to gun stuff) agree with you!
Hey now wait a minute! I said conservative v. liberal, then said strict constructionist vs. open/breathing/living document approach. I didn't say strict vs. liberal! ;)
As for slavery, there was a time when the Supreme Court made a horrible decision about slavery -- remember Dred Scott? Every kid in school should learn that one. The rights aren't disposable. I am tired of Justices being "cafeteria jurists," picking and choosing which they want to support. The ACLU is notorious for its support of nine of the 10 amendments to the Constitution.
The Court's decision several years ago on campaign finance reform still boggles the mind. It stifled speech. And is one of reasons I am not a big John McCain fan.
Of course, just because a so-called conservative or so-called liberal is appointed to the High Court, it doesn't mean they will vote the way people want them to. Several sitting Justices fall into that category.
As always, A, thanks for writing!
Post a Comment