Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:18:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 11:19:14 AM EDT by miamilightning]
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:19:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By miamilightning:
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
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:20:22 AM EDT
I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:21:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shootemup:

Originally Posted By miamilightning:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:22:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ASNixon:
I think he is an individualist - rare that a judge understands Miller and expresses it truthfully.

He mentioned Miller?

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:23:26 AM EDT
Did he not answer because Fiengold is A Dem? I thought the Judiciary committee was atacked by GOP.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:02 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:43 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By ASNixon:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:26:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Coolio:
Now, now, that would ruin the surprise.



Yeah, right.

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


SUPRISE!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:30:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
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
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:37:02 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:41:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 11:41:58 AM EDT by 1911lover]

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
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".
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:51:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By miamilightning:

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By ASNixon:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:51:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By miamilightning:

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

Originally Posted By 1911lover:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:05:38 PM EDT
tag.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:50:21 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:55:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:00:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911lover:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:02:30 PM EDT
He did the same on every issue they brought up. Big deal.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:04:18 PM EDT
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!"
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:05:36 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:06:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:06:48 PM EDT
He isn't going to tell any of them shit. We should all be happy about that.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:11:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By miamilightning:

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By ASNixon:
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.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:20:16 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:24:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lightfighter:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:37:19 PM EDT
I watched some of the hearings.

Roberts simply outclassed them all.

He is a shoe in.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:40:35 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:42:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCommissioner:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:54:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 2:00:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 2:07:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCommissioner:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 2:21:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By miamilightning:
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!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:15:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 3:18:33 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By TheCommissioner:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:17:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:45:09 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:51:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
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?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:59:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 52brandon:

Originally Posted By 1911lover:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
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
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:07:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
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
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:10:17 PM EDT
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.

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

Originally Posted By miamilightning:

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By ASNixon:
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!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:22:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
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.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:30:32 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:38:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:40:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:49:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
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....


Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:53:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:53:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kaizoku:
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.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:56:18 PM EDT
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top