Flash John Roberts refused to address 2nd AMendment issue. = (

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Flash John Roberts refused to address 2nd AMendment issue. = ( (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:18:13 AM EDT

Roberts, being questioned by Sen Feingold (D-WI) refused to give his opinion on whether 2nd Amendment right is indivdual or collective right. Hmmmmmmmm. I'd love to know his opinion.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:19:21 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Roberts, being questioned by Sen Feingold (D-WI) refused to give his opinion on whether 2nd Amendment right is indivdual or collective right. Hmmmmmmmm. I'd love to know his opinion.

Wouldn't we all

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:20:22 AM EDT

[#2]

I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:21:26 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Roberts, being questioned by Sen Feingold (D-WI) refused to give his opinion on whether 2nd Amendment right is indivdual or collective right. Hmmmmmmmm. I'd love to know his opinion.

Wouldn't we all

Now, now, that would ruin the surprise.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:22:45 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.

He mentioned Miller?

Kharn

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:23:26 AM EDT

[#5]

Did he not answer because Fiengold is A Dem? I thought the Judiciary committee was atacked by GOP.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:02 AM EDT

[#6]

Isn't it typical for Judges to withhold their opinion because their opinion isn't suppose to matter as much as what the letter of the law is? Patty

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:43 AM EDT

[#7]

.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:47 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.
He mentioned Miller?

Kharn

I believe Feingold brought Miller up. BTW, he's a Dem that seems to be pro-individual gun rights.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:26:31 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Now, now, that would ruin the surprise.

Yeah, right.

It's going to be a good one too I'm sure....

SUPRISE!!!!!

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:30:06 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Isn't it typical for Judges to withhold their opinion because their opinion isn't suppose to matter as much as what the letter of the law is? Patty

+1

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:37:02 AM EDT

[#11]

Everytime they ask a judge how he would rule, the judge should look at him like an idiot and say "That's why we have hearings, evidence, and all that. I cannot give an opinion without hearing the evidence, dumbass".

Anyone that expects a judge to rule without a hearing or evidence should be disbarred from any public office on the spot.

Larry

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:41:41 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Isn't it typical for Judges to withhold their opinion because their opinion isn't suppose to matter as much as what the letter of the law is? Patty

However, Judges render "opinions"....thats what they do. Unfortunately, too many opinions in reality, is "legislation from the bench".

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:51:38 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.
He mentioned Miller?

Kharn

I believe Feingold brought Miller up. BTW, he's a Dem that seems to be pro-individual gun rights.

Not only seems to be but is. I posted it in a couple other threads about this. Fiengold has changed his stance over the last few years on the 2A. In part becuase we Wisconsin gun owners have been consistantly bombarding him with letters. Remember he voted for the AWB in 1994, but in 2004 he refused to even consider voting for a new one, in part because we the pepople didn't want one, and in part becuase he saw in those 10years that it really was a wasted piece of legislation that didn't do squat. If I can find the letter I'll post it.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:51:40 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

I believe Feingold brought Miller up. BTW, he's a Dem that seems to be pro-individual gun rights.

Feingold has a mixed bag of votes on gun issues.

"Gun Policy: He received a 10% score from the NRA, and a 100% score from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence"

selectsmart.com/president/Feingold.html

Posted: 9/14/2005 12:00:29 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it typical for Judges to withhold their opinion because their opinion isn't suppose to matter as much as what the letter of the law is? Patty

However, Judges render "opinions"....thats what they do. Unfortunately, too many opinions in reality, is "legislation from the bench".

+1. Their job is to "interpret" the constitution. Which generally means, whatever they say goes.

Posted: 9/14/2005 12:05:38 PM EDT

[#16]

tag.

Posted: 9/14/2005 12:50:21 PM EDT

[#17]

Don't really see how this is a surprise. I wouldn't answer Feingold either. Pretty sure the question wasn't being asked to help Roberts out...

Posted: 9/14/2005 12:55:57 PM EDT

[#18]

Judges can not allow themselves to comment on issues they may have to hear in the future, either as a sitting judge, or as a justice. Around and around and around he went yesterday with people wnating to know how he would rule and he kept reminding them that he is not able to comment on cases that he might see in the future.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:00:49 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it typical for Judges to withhold their opinion because their opinion isn't suppose to matter as much as what the letter of the law is? Patty

However, Judges render "opinions"....thats what they do. Unfortunately, too many opinions in reality, is "legislation from the bench".

Have you ever read a judge's opinion? You will find that they are typically not expressive of the personal opinion of the judge, but rather a determination of the solution based on the facts of the case.

Roberts is doing the exact right thing. One's personal opinions on the Second Amendment, Coke vs. Pepsi, Tastes Great/Less Filling have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with that person's qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

We do not need to "stack the court" with those sympathetic to the cause, because whe an objective view of teh Second Amendment is taken, the notion of the individual right will be obvious. We want this judge, indeed all judges, to hear and try the cases that come before the SCOTUS only on merit and facts of the case.

It was the Democrats who started the whole stacking bullshit. Let it be their legacy, not ours.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:02:30 PM EDT

[#20]

He did the same on every issue they brought up. Big deal.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:04:18 PM EDT

[#21]

When asked if he would repeal Roe v. Wade he said that he could not speculat on what a decision would be and that it is a case by case basis.

Smart move, and right choice. Same thing with firearms, REGARDLESS of how much I would love him to pull out a USGI 1911 and say "this motherfucker is guaranteed under my individual 2nd Amendment rights!"

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:05:36 PM EDT

[#22]

They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:06:45 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Yeah, and the sky is falling.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:06:48 PM EDT

[#24]

He isn't going to tell any of them shit. We should all be happy about that.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:11:14 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.
He mentioned Miller?

Kharn

I believe Feingold brought Miller up. BTW, he's a Dem that seems to be pro-individual gun rights.

Not only seems to be but is. I posted it in a couple other threads about this. Fiengold has changed his stance over the last few years on the 2A. In part becuase we Wisconsin gun owners have been consistantly bombarding him with letters. Remember he voted for the AWB in 1994, but in 2004 he refused to even consider voting for a new one, in part because we the pepople didn't want one, and in part becuase he saw in those 10years that it really was a wasted piece of legislation that didn't do squat. If I can find the letter I'll post it.

Put a real ban in front of him and you'll see how pro-gun he is.

The only reason he came on board for 2004 is that it was an election year.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:20:16 PM EDT

[#26]

Ollie North must have coached him well

I love watching the Dem's implode

I thought Schumer and Biden's heads were going to explode

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:24:59 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Judges can not allow themselves to comment on issues they may have to hear in the future, either as a sitting judge, or as a justice. Around and around and around he went yesterday with people wnating to know how he would rule and he kept reminding them that he is not able to comment on cases that he might see in the future.

This is actually a good sign for us. He spoke to issues that he doesn't think will find their way in front of the court soon. Refusing to speak on the 2nd means that he thinks it is an issue which will (should?) be ruled on by SCOTUS.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:37:19 PM EDT

[#28]

I watched some of the hearings.

Roberts simply outclassed them all.

He is a shoe in.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:40:35 PM EDT

[#29]

Why won't some senator ask these questions?

1) Judge, have you ever owned a firearm?

2) Have you ever discharged a firearm?

3) Have you or a close family member ever been a victim of a violent crime?

4) What was your reaction to the news about the attempt on President Reagan's life by John Hinckley?

5) What in our Constitution gives the citizenry protection from the suspension of the Bill of Rights by an authoritarian government?

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:42:51 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Why won't some senator ask these questions?

Because the Democrats don't care and the Republicans don't want him to say ANYTHING that might make it harder to get him nominated.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:54:37 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Yeah, and the sky is falling.

I hope you are right Larry. Unfortunately the history of both parties' SC appointments during the last century hasn't done much to engender any hope for 2A rights in this country. Has there ever been a surprise pro-2A SC judge in the last 105 years? I fully expect to get fucked more than before.

Posted: 9/14/2005 2:00:59 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Yeah, and the sky is falling.

I hope you are right Larry. Unfortunately the history of both parties' SC appointments during the last century hasn't done much to engender any hope for 2A rights in this country. Has there ever been a surprise pro-2A SC judge in the last 105 years? I fully expect to get fucked more than before.

May as well give up and send all your guns to me then.

Posted: 9/14/2005 2:07:55 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Why won't some senator ask these questions?

1) Judge, have you ever owned a firearm?

2) Have you ever discharged a firearm?

3) Have you or a close family member ever been a victim of a violent crime?

4) What was your reaction to the news about the attempt on President Reagan's life by John Hinckley?

5) What in our Constitution gives the citizenry protection from the suspension of the Bill of Rights by an authoritarian government?

Because those questions are completely irrelevant to the purpose of nomination hearings.

Posted: 9/14/2005 2:21:34 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW, he's a Dem that seems to be pro-individual gun rights.

Not only seems to be but is. I posted it in a couple other threads about this. Fiengold has changed his stance over the last few years on the 2A.
<snip>
If I can find the letter I'll post it.

Photoman, I usually find you reliable, but I won't believe this unless you post a letter. I've written him several times about 2A issues and always gotten one of those replies that doesn't say anything. His voting record sucks on gun rights, and he's a prime instigator of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance bill that stripped the ability of organizations like the NRA to campaign against politicians, taking away our 1A rights too!

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:15:48 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Why won't some senator ask these questions?

1) Judge, have you ever owned a firearm?

2) Have you ever discharged a firearm?

3) Have you or a close family member ever been a victim of a violent crime?

4) What was your reaction to the news about the attempt on President Reagan's life by John Hinckley?

5) What in our Constitution gives the citizenry protection from the suspension of the Bill of Rights by an authoritarian government?

Because they are stupid questions and have nothing to do with the proceedings.

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:17:41 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Yeah, and the sky is falling.

I hope you are right Larry. Unfortunately the history of both parties' SC appointments during the last century hasn't done much to engender any hope for 2A rights in this country. Has there ever been a surprise pro-2A SC judge in the last 105 years? I fully expect to get fucked more than before.

Don't be such a damned pessimist. This is GWs first appointment. We may all be pleasantly surprised. Of course, we may get a bad surprise, but damn, try to have a little optimism. Sheesh.

You just don't like GW.

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:45:09 PM EDT

[#37]

if this guy gets nominated someone needs to find a way to bring a 2a case before the supreme court. he'd make a lot of noise. I think he'd end up ruling it's an individual right. I think there'd be enough pro-2nd justices on there for the ruling to be in our favor.

and what it's worth and even though he's still better than Kerry, I don't really like GW as a president either.

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:51:42 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Yeah, and the sky is falling.

I hope you are right Larry. Unfortunately the history of both parties' SC appointments during the last century hasn't done much to engender any hope for 2A rights in this country. Has there ever been a surprise pro-2A SC judge in the last 105 years? I fully expect to get fucked more than before.

May as well give up and send all your guns to me then.

Sure. What's your address again? Does the post office deliver flaming sacks of dog poop?

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:59:17 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it typical for Judges to withhold their opinion because their opinion isn't suppose to matter as much as what the letter of the law is? Patty

However, Judges render "opinions"....thats what they do. Unfortunately, too many opinions in reality, is "legislation from the bench".
+1. Their job is to "interpret" the constitution. Which generally means, whatever they say goes.

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948)
Jurist
Law 1884
Faculty 1884–87
LLD (hon.) 1907

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:07:36 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Isn't it typical for Judges to withhold their opinion because their opinion isn't suppose to matter as much as what the letter of the law is? Patty

Yup. In case others haven't been paying attention, Roberts hasn't been addressing any specific issues b/c they could come before him on the court. And we absolutely don't want Roberts to have to recuse himself if a 2nd related case comes before SCOTUS

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:10:17 PM EDT

[#41]

Anne Coulter made a VERY good point on Sean Hannity's radio show today:

Why is G.W.B. nominating Roberts for CJ, when Scalia has more experience and is more deserving?
Plus, if Scalia were nominated for CJ, the Dems would be throwing so much more of a fit, that it would have taken the spotlight off of Roberts, and he would have easily been appointed.

This has happened before, when Reagan appointed Reinquist as CJ, the Dems threw a fit, and he snuck Scalia in without too much turmoil.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:19:09 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.
He mentioned Miller?

Kharn

I believe Feingold brought Miller up. BTW, he's a Dem that seems to be pro-individual gun rights.

Well, shit! I started hammering Feingold before he was even elected with a LOT of log winded letters pertaining to this stuff. First he was the only guy to vote AGAINST the Patriot Act. Then he declined to support renewing the AWB and even opined that it was an infringement of rights. Now this?

Glad I voted for him!!!!!!

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:22:15 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Not only seems to be but is. I posted it in a couple other threads about this. Fiengold has changed his stance over the last few years on the 2A. In part becuase we Wisconsin gun owners have been consistantly bombarding him with letters. Remember he voted for the AWB in 1994, but in 2004 he refused to even consider voting for a new one, in part because we the pepople didn't want one, and in part becuase he saw in those 10years that it really was a wasted piece of legislation that didn't do squat. If I can find the letter I'll post it.

Are you sure it wasnt because of the NRA ?

The NRA is the only protector of gun rights.

Only the NRA.

No influence can be brought about by the motivated individual.

Send your $35.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:30:32 PM EDT

[#44]

You all need to calm down. The Senators are asking him questions that he can't answer because he must remain impartial and not pre-judge any cases that might come before the court. Based on what I have seen and heard he is a solid constitutionalist.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:38:27 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Yeah, and the sky is falling.

I hope you are right Larry. Unfortunately the history of both parties' SC appointments during the last century hasn't done much to engender any hope for 2A rights in this country. Has there ever been a surprise pro-2A SC judge in the last 105 years? I fully expect to get fucked more than before.

May as well give up and send all your guns to me then.

Sure. What's your address again? Does the post office deliver flaming sacks of dog poop?

Dog poop sure...flaming would violate postal regulations.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:40:59 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
You all need to calm down. The Senators are asking him questions that he can't answer because he must remain impartial and not pre-judge any cases that might come before the court. Based on what I have seen and heard he is a solid constitutionalist.

Amen. And that's all we really need to know. IMHO, Roberts was an excellent candidate. I only hope Bush can find someone else similar for the other nomination.

Roberts worked for Rehnquist. He was a mentor to him. Roberts really respected and admired him. I think Roberts will be a similar judge in the end.

Now while all the talk is centered on Roberts, I'd love to see Bush pull another Scalia out of his hat from nowhere.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:49:37 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't supposed to rule based on their opinions, but it does color which arguments they consider and which they reject.

Roberts is an unknown, which makes him dangerous.

Yeah, and the sky is falling.

I hope you are right Larry. Unfortunately the history of both parties' SC appointments during the last century hasn't done much to engender any hope for 2A rights in this country. Has there ever been a surprise pro-2A SC judge in the last 105 years? I fully expect to get fucked more than before.

Don't be such a damned pessimist. This is GWs first appointment. We may all be pleasantly surprised. Of course, we may get a bad surprise, but damn, try to have a little optimism. Sheesh.

You just don't like GW.

No, we just get burned too often by politicians who would claim to be representing us. Oh, well- as long as one expects the worst with politicians and the courts, one will never be disappointed....

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:53:04 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You all need to calm down. The Senators are asking him questions that he can't answer because he must remain impartial and not pre-judge any cases that might come before the court. Based on what I have seen and heard he is a solid constitutionalist.

Amen. And that's all we really need to know. IMHO, Roberts was an excellent candidate. I only hope Bush can find someone else similar for the other nomination.

Roberts worked for Rehnquist. He was a mentor to him. Roberts really respected and admired him. I think Roberts will be a similar judge in the end.

Now while all the talk is centered on Roberts, I'd love to see Bush pull another Scalia out of his hat from nowhere.

You mean Ashcroft?

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:53:42 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Anne Coulter made a VERY ~~good~~ stupid and shortsighted point on Sean Hannity's radio show today:

Appoint Scalia: three nomination hearings
Appoint Roberts: only (basically) two hearings

This is all tactics and has nothing to do with who
"deserves" the position more based on seniority.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:56:18 PM EDT

[#50]

I suspect that this guy is another statist elitist just like most of the other clowns Bush has appointed.

Roberts should have answered the question as it's a legitimate one. It regards the nature of our Rights, and it is the duty of the Senate to defend our Rights via the confirmation process.

As for Roberts "not knowing the answer", that is bullshit. It's a simple question that anyone on this forum could easily answer. Yet people think that a career lawyer hasn't pondered it?

So let's consider the options. This is one of those cases where it really is binary-- there isn't much middle ground. Either you believe it's a collective right or you believe it's an indiviudal right.

#1) He answers that it's an individual Right. All 100 senators will then have to go on record as supporting or opposing that view. He'll get 60+ votes as most Republicans will line up to support the RKBA, and even some democrats. Some democrats that vote against him will then be portrayed as anti-gun and likely lose the next election. Result: Roberts is confirmed. Republicans benefit from the issue. Roberts will then have to support the RKBA while on the bench.

#2) He answers that it's an collective Right. He might not get confirmed since pro-gun Republicans will hesitate to support him. Result: The standing of the Republican party as "pro-RKBA" takes a serious hit, and Roberts might not get confirmed.

#3) He doesn't answer the question. Result: He gets confirmed and can then rule against the RKBA. Republicans who supported him can play dumb as they did with Souter and the other clowns and claim "we didn't know he was a gun grabber".

My logic is that #2 isn't going to happen. So if he really supports the RKBA, why not go with #1, which would benefit the GOP?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why he isn't answering the question.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Flash John Roberts refused to address 2nd AMendment issue. = ( (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us