-SNIP-

I’d like to use my time to discuss some of my concerns.

I have very deep concern about the legacy of the Rehnquist Court and its efforts to restrict Congressional authority to enact legislation by adopting a very narrow view of several provisions of the Constitution, including the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment. This trend, I believe, if continued, would restrict, and could even prevent, the Congress from addressing major environmental and social issues in the future.

As I see it, certain of your decisions on the 3 rd Circuit raise questions about whether you would continue to advance the Rehnquist Court’s limited view of Congressional authority – and I hope to clear that up.

Let me give you one example here – and that’s the Rybar case. Your dissent argued that Congress lacked the authority to ban the possession and transfer of machine guns, based essentially on a technicality that Congressional findings from previous statutes were not explicitly incorporated in the legislation.

You took this position – even though the Supreme Court had made clear in 1939 – the Miller case -- that Congress did have the authority to ban the possession and transfer of firearms, and even though Congress had passed three federal statutes that extensively documented the impact that guns and gun violence have on interstate commerce.

I am concerned that the Rybar opinion demonstrates a willingness to strike down laws with which you personally may disagree by employing a narrow reading of Congress’s constitutional authority to enact legislation.  -SNIP-

Feinstein to Samuel Alito

Feinstien cant read or think.

What did you expect.

My only response would definitely violate the CoC and would possibly get me arrested.  I'll leave it at that.

Since when did Miller deal with BANNING firearms?

The NFA NEVER banned firearms

Quoted: Since when did Miller deal with BANNING firearms? The NFA NEVER banned firearms

exactly

Miller only said that the SC didn't think a sawed of shotgun was essintial to a well regulated militia

Quoted: Since when did Miller deal with BANNING firearms? The NFA NEVER banned firearms

and Miler never showed up so it was a win by default
BTW I only reserve this term for special people which she is



CHARLIE UNIFORM NOVEMBER TANGO

Here is Chuck Schumer on the Rybar Case and Alito's dissent

-SNIP-

Similarly, on the issue of federalism, you seem to have taken an extreme view, substituting your own judgment for that of the legislature. Certainly, in one important case, you wrote in U.S. v. Rybar that Congress had exceeded its power by prohibiting the possession of fully automatic machine guns.

The other judges on your court all disagreed with you. And all five other circuits that had considered the issue up to that point also disagreed with you.

Do you still hold these cramped views of Congressional power? Will you engage in judicial activism to find ways to strike down laws that the American people want their elected representatives to pass and that the Constitution authorizes? Because of your stated views, right now, these are also open questions-SNIP-

Chuck Schumer to Alito

Yep... she doesn't seem to realize that Miller didn't BAN anything.  It also basically said that weapons that would be effective for use in a militia were protected by the 2nd, and that weapons that were not, were not protected.  Well, that's what it implied.

Also Miller didn't make it to the final rulings, so it was basically a default case... heck, it should have been thrown out.


And also, how could anyone read the Constitution, and NOT determine that it was intended to have a limited federal government??  

Quoted: Here is Chuck Schumer on the Rybar Case and Alito's dissent -SNIP- Similarly, on the issue of federalism, you seem to have taken an extreme view, substituting your own judgment for that of the legislature. Certainly, in one important case, you wrote in U.S. v. Rybar that Congress had exceeded its power by prohibiting the possession of fully automatic machine guns. The other judges on your court all disagreed with you. And all five other circuits that had considered the issue up to that point also disagreed with you. Do you still hold these cramped views of Congressional power? Will you engage in judicial activism to find ways to strike down laws that the American people want their elected representatives to pass and that the Constitution authorizes? Because of your stated views, right now, these are also open questions-SNIP- Chuck Schumer to Alito

That right thier is why we have a judisal branch

Another thing these asshats seem to believe is that, you get a couple judgements that are contrary to the meaning of an amendment in the Bill of Rights, then the meaning of that amendment changes.


Sorry fucktards, that which it meant when it was penned, it still means today.  

Quoted: Here is Chuck Schumer on the Rybar Case and Alito's dissent -SNIP- Similarly, on the issue of federalism, you seem to have taken an extreme view, substituting your own judgment for that of the legislature. Certainly, in one important case, you wrote in U.S. v. Rybar that Congress had exceeded its power by prohibiting the possession of fully automatic machine guns. The other judges on your court all disagreed with you. And all five other circuits that had considered the issue up to that point also disagreed with you. Do you still hold these cramped views of Congressional power? Will you engage in judicial activism to find ways to strike down laws that the American people want their elected representatives to pass and that the Constitution authorizes? Because of your stated views, right now, these are also open questions-SNIP- Chuck Schumer to Alito

Dammit!  Banned and arrested again!

Once again we see that Feinstein and little Chuck S. are morons.

It never ceases to amaze me how dumb some people in high places can be.

Quoted: Since when did Miller deal with BANNING firearms? The NFA NEVER banned firearms

In 1939 it effectively did.  Average monthly income then was about $30 was it not?  $200 puts it out of reach of all but the most elite back then.  Thankfully tax did not adjust for inflation.

Incredible amount of hypocricy here. Am a strict constitutionalist/ original intent kind of guy myself and was not aware of judicial activism as a part of Alito's history. If this is truly their fear then it would appear that they are of the opinion that if one where to 'engage in judicial activism' that it is only acceptable if presented by those inclned to the  liberal/socialist cause and that it would not be acceptable as a tool within a conservative approach. This has to be some type of hype to validate and define  judicial activism within the narrow confines of liberal interpretation and  as attempt to cloud the issue as to what judicial activism actually is and who it is that engages in the broad interpretive use of  it.  Maybe they are trying to shortcircuit the argument pre-emptively- defining strict interpretation as a form of judicial activism. That is clever.

The USSC ruled that Miller's side "failed to prove" that sawed off shotgun was a weapon used by the Militia, and thus it was not protected by the 2nd.

Miller failed to prove this because he nor his attorney even showed up for court.  Miller was murdered IIRC.

Believe Miller didn't show up because he was a criminal with a previous history and the dispute with the interpretation of a militia weapon was an attempt to limit the shotgun as a piece of evidence. He was not disputing his guilt for other crimes and perhaps would have been prosecuted anyway for the other charges. Don't know if the argument was a way to secure bail enabling him to skip his bond but would think he definitely had no desire to show up for the trial given his bleak prospect of a future...

ETA bad memory forced research and link is for RKBA research for Miller case.

www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

Where can i find Alito's responses to the questions?

I NEVER VOTED FOR THAT BITCH. Fuck her opinion.

Quoted: Incredible amount of hypocricy here. Am a strict constitutionalist/ original intent kind of guy myself and was not aware of judicial activism as a part of Alito's history. If this is truly their fear then it would appear that they are of the opinion that if one where to 'engage in judicial activism' that it is only acceptable if presented by those inclned to the  liberal/socialist cause and that it would not be acceptable as a tool within a conservative approach. This has to be some type of hype to validate and define  judicial activism within the narrow confines of liberal interpretation and  as attempt to cloud the issue as to what judicial activism actually is and who it is that engages in the broad interpretive use of  it.  Maybe they are trying to shortcircuit the argument pre-emptively- defining strict interpretation as a form of judicial activism. That is clever.

You give them waaaaayyyyy too much credit.

Just remember that stupid is as stupid does.

Quoted: I NEVER VOTED FOR THAT BITCH. Fuck her opinion.

Yeah, but there must be alot of free swinging California fucktards who did.....

Quoted: Where can i find Alito's responses to the questions?

I think today was the "opening statements" from the panel, and not actual questions looking for answers.  Grandstanding in other words.

We all know Chucky and Fineswine are conniving egomaniacs who will twist the truth to fit their own narrow minded view of the world....