Valkyrie Riders Cruiser Club
November 20, 2025, 06:10:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Ultimate Seats Link VRCC Store
Homepage : Photostash : JustPics : Shoptalk : Old Tech Archive : Classifieds : Contact Staff
News: If you're new to this message board, read THIS!
 
MarkT Exhaust
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court  (Read 727 times)
FryeVRCCDS0067
Member
*****
Posts: 4350


Brazil, IN


« on: October 21, 2016, 11:32:19 AM »

I've tried (with much less clarity) to explain how a Hillary Supreme Court will make our 2nd Amendment right inaccessible to individual citizens. The guy (his name is Guy also) who explains it so clearly here is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment attorney and firearms instructor. He has a radio show every Saturday morning which is well worth listening to.

http://www.wibc.com/blogs/gun-guy/hillary-gets-it-wrong-second-amendment-again
Logged

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.''
-- Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech at the Republican Convention; 1964
MarkT
Member
*****
Posts: 5196


VRCC #437 "Form follows Function"

Colorado Front Range - elevation 2.005 km


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2016, 11:40:37 AM »

Mike, the server is down apparently.  I'm assuming the radio is wibc.  Any links to content from him?
Logged


Vietnam-474 TFW Takhli 9-12/72 Linebckr II;307 SBW U-Tapao 05/73-4
FryeVRCCDS0067
Member
*****
Posts: 4350


Brazil, IN


« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2016, 11:59:57 AM »

Mike, the server is down apparently.  I'm assuming the radio is wibc.  Any links to content from him?

The link still works from here. I can't find any direct links to his blog but I'll keep looking.
Logged

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.''
-- Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech at the Republican Convention; 1964
FryeVRCCDS0067
Member
*****
Posts: 4350


Brazil, IN


« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2016, 12:02:46 PM »

His radio show is also recorded and podcast? from the WBIC webpage which is how I usually listen to it.
Logged

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.''
-- Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech at the Republican Convention; 1964
Jess from VA
Member
*****
Posts: 30861


No VA


« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2016, 01:24:30 PM »

The thing that is so important with SCOTUS and 2d Amendment is the test cases that are brought up there to be heard (the facts of the case presented need to be just right).  First, the appeal has to be voted on to be heard; if it isn't, the lower court decision stands (though denial of certiorari is not an affirmance of the lower court decision).

You can bet that the landmark Heller and McDonald cases were carefully screened, to insure the best chances to a) succeed and b) serve as general landmarks that the 2d Amend is an individual liberty applicable to all good citizens.  You do not want a test case that has too many sub issues so the Court can go off on a narrow tangent and avoid the main issue entirely.  And you do not want a case that gives the Court the opportunity to carve out even a small piece of 2d Amend liberty.

There are probably hundreds of potential cases every year that NRA/GOA/libertarians could pursue through the federal appeals process, but only a select few are the right cases to choose to go all in on.  It is far better that there be no federal appeals decision on a number of subjects, than give them the opportunity to screw things up.  And you'll note that these appeals are nearly always run by citizens and groups like NRA, not the G.  

If we end up with more lying, oath-breaking scum like Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan on the Court, the most important thing to do is simply bring no appeals before them which would give them the opportunity to put their leftist activism to work.

Of course, there is no telling what a leftist activist DOJ/AG might do. 
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 01:28:54 PM by Jess from VA » Logged
scooperhsd
Member
*****
Posts: 5885

Kansas City KS


« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2016, 04:29:24 PM »

Interesting strategy - in the IT world we call it "security through obscurity" - don't make the hole / vulnerability general knowledge.
Logged
FryeVRCCDS0067
Member
*****
Posts: 4350


Brazil, IN


« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2016, 09:22:10 PM »

The thing that is so important with SCOTUS and 2d Amendment is the test cases that are brought up there to be heard (the facts of the case presented need to be just right).  First, the appeal has to be voted on to be heard; if it isn't, the lower court decision stands (though denial of certiorari is not an affirmance of the lower court decision).

You can bet that the landmark Heller and McDonald cases were carefully screened, to insure the best chances to a) succeed and b) serve as general landmarks that the 2d Amend is an individual liberty applicable to all good citizens.  You do not want a test case that has too many sub issues so the Court can go off on a narrow tangent and avoid the main issue entirely.  And you do not want a case that gives the Court the opportunity to carve out even a small piece of 2d Amend liberty.

There are probably hundreds of potential cases every year that NRA/GOA/libertarians could pursue through the federal appeals process, but only a select few are the right cases to choose to go all in on.  It is far better that there be no federal appeals decision on a number of subjects, than give them the opportunity to screw things up.  And you'll note that these appeals are nearly always run by citizens and groups like NRA, not the G.  

If we end up with more lying, oath-breaking scum like Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan on the Court, the most important thing to do is simply bring no appeals before them which would give them the opportunity to put their leftist activism to work.

Of course, there is no telling what a leftist activist DOJ/AG might do. 

What the DOJ/AG might do. That's the thing. We have won those cases because people like many of us here donate our hard earned money to further what we believe is a very just cause, the preservation of our freedom.

But when the anti-freedom people have a friend in the White House, they use "our tax money" against us hoping to reduce our freedoms. And you can be sure, they also will wait on just the right cases to have the best chance of reducing our freedom to the greatest possible extent. If they own the courts, it's a done deal, our rights are finished. Maybe not in the next 5 years, but still finished if they own the Supreme Court. I don't see a way to preserve our descendants freedom under those circumstances. Hopefully, those circumstances don't materialize.
Logged

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.''
-- Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech at the Republican Convention; 1964
Robert
Member
*****
Posts: 17398


S Florida


« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2016, 04:41:13 AM »

Jesse has the exact way this has been planed to happen and has its basis in history and in the change of United States as we know it today.  A great piece of US history that shows how following generations and an ideal along with skullduggery can change the US as we knew it. It effectively led the way for Obama to call us a secular nation, redefining marriage, attacks on religious freedom, the US moving away from foundation teachings, Millennials loosing sense of country.  

Franklin D. Roosevelt and HARRY S TRUMAN were instrumental in changing the very heritage and foundation of the US. Both appointed judges to the Supreme Court, both were Masons and following an ideal of how the US should be. In total Truman appointed four Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (including one Chief Justice), 27 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 101 judges to the United States district courts. In total Roosevelt appointed 193 federal judges, more than twice as many as the previous record of 79 appointed by Calvin Coolidge. These included eight Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, elevated one to Chief Justice, appointed 51 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 134 judges to the United States district courts. Most of the judges appointed were Masons and One of these judges was Hugo Black.
 

Hugo Lafayette Black (February 17, 1886 – September 25, 1971) was an American politician who served as a Democratic United States Senator and represented Alabama in the Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 63 to 16 (6 Democratic Senators and 10 Republican Senators voted against him.) He was first of nine Roosevelt nominees to the Court, and he outlasted all except for William O. Douglas. Black is widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the 20th century.

The fifth longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, Black is noted for his advocacy of a textualist reading of the United States Constitution and of the position that the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were imposed on the states ("incorporated") by the Fourteenth Amendment. During his political career, Black was regarded as a staunch supporter of liberal policies and civil liberties.However, Black consistently opposed the doctrine of substantive due process (the anti-New Deal Supreme Court cited this concept in such a way as to make it impossible for the government to enact legislation that interfered with the freedom of business owners) and believed that there was no basis in the words of the Constitution for a right to privacy, voting against finding one in Griswold v. Connecticut. A reformer in the Senate and a devoted New Dealer, Black endorsed Roosevelt in both the 1932 and 1936 presidential elections.

Justice Hugo Black and his 1947 opinion in Everson v. Board of Education. In this opinion, Justice Black quoted Thomas Jefferson’s term “wall of separation” and

further added his own opinion that the wall must be high and impregnable.

This meant that from that day forward the separation of church and state would be applied to all aspects of government not just the federal level. Several key factors in Justice Black’s background inclined the Justice to rule unfavorably against religion. First, it is a known fact that Justice Black was a member of the KKK, an organization that was known to be particularly bigoted towards Catholics. Second, Justice Black believed Paul Blanshard’s writings concerning the Catholic Church and shared his mistrust of the Catholic Church. Finally, at the time of his opinion, Justice Black was not a practicing Christian and the evidence shows that the Justice did not believe in the supernatural aspects of Christianity. This evidence supports a conclusion that Justice Black was prejudiced against religion in his decision in Everson v. Board of Education and engaged in judicial activism.

you might say that this was one judges activism in redefining the Constitution of the US in regards to religious freedom but you would be wrong. This started much earlier as a decided and concerted effort and as Jess pointed out this started earlier in the courts agreeing and welcoming cases like these to limit religious freedoms of the US citizen. Below is more information on this process and its straight out of Wikipedia.


More info below:

One of Roosevelt's most severe political defeats during his presidency was the failure of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, popularly known as the court-packing bill, which sought to stack a hostile Supreme Court in his favor by adding more associate justices. Soon after this setback, however, Roosevelt obtained his first opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice when conservative Willis Van Devanter retired. Roosevelt wanted the replacement to be a "thumping, evangelical New Dealer" who was reasonably young, confirmable by the Senate, and from a region of the country unrepresented on the Court. The three final candidates were Solicitor General Stanley Reed, Indiana Senator Sherman Minton, and Alabama Senator Hugo Black. Roosevelt said Reed "had no fire," and Minton didn't want the appointment at the time. Black was a candidate from the South who as a senator had voted for all twenty-four of Roosevelt's major New Deal programs, and had been an outspoken advocate of the court-packing plan. Roosevelt admired Black's use of the investigative role of the Senate to shape the American mind on reforms, his strong voting record, and his early support, which dated back to 1933.

On August 12, 1937, Roosevelt nominated Black to fill the vacancy. For the first time since 1853, the Senate departed from its tradition, which had been to confirm the appointment of a sitting Senator without debate. Instead, it referred the nomination to the Judiciary Committee. Black was criticized by other senators and Newsweek for his presumed bigotry, his cultural roots, and later when it became public, his Klan membership, but the Committee recommended Black's confirmation by a vote of 13–4 on August 16.
The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and Democratic Senators Royal S. Copeland and Edward R. Burke urged the Senate to defeat the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black - ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black. He resigned from the Senate and was sworn in as an Associate Justice two days later; Black would later explain that the haste in resigning was to avoid fallout from his Klan membership potentially going public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt_Supreme_Court_candidates




« Last Edit: October 22, 2016, 05:29:11 AM by Robert » Logged

“Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.”
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: