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

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

Posted: 9/14/2005 5:00:41 PM EDT

[#1]

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

Yeah, because he is not answering ANY question
reguarding case law that may come before the
SCOTUS.

Tin foil too tight again?

Posted: 9/14/2005 5:08:04 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
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.

Good points, but justices are supposed to pay deference to the precedent of common law. Unfortunately for 2A issues that is mostly NFA34 temperence era bullshit.

Why don't they trample over the 1A or the 4A with disregard? Is the sequence of being #2 on the bill of rights, the ENUMERATION of GOD-GIVEN rights somehow an insignificant thing?

I think, I wonder, and I despair.

Posted: 9/14/2005 5:33:23 PM EDT

[#3]

Just because the government ignores our rights doesn't mean that citizens do too.

Bring it.

Posted: 9/14/2005 5:36:57 PM EDT

[#4]

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

Yeah, because he is not answering ANY question
reguarding case law that may come before the
SCOTUS.

Tin foil too tight again?

It's a fundamental question about the basic nature of our Rights.

As for "tin foil", mark my words, this guy is going to screw us over. I hope I'm wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time "Republican" SC judges eviscerated the Bill of Rights.

Posted: 9/15/2005 7:47:00 AM EDT

[#5]

Here's the full exchange from this link: LINK

FEINGOLD: Let's go to something else then. I'd like to hear your views about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This is an amendment where there's a real shortage of jurisprudence.

You mentioned the Third Amendment where there's even less jurisprudence, but the Second Amendment's close. So I think you can maybe help us understand your approach to interpreting the Constitution by saying a bit about it.

The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.

FEINGOLD: The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.

In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.

The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.

So what is your view of the Second Amendment? Do you support one of the other views of the views of what was intended by that amendment?

ROBERTS: Yes. Well, I mean, you're quite right that there is a dispute among the circuit courts. It's really a conflict among the circuits.

The 5th Circuit -- I think it was in the Emerson case, if I'm remembering it correctly -- agreed with what I understand to be your view, that this protects an individual right. But they went on to say that the right was not infringed in that case. They upheld the regulations there.

The 9th Circuit has taken a different view. I don't remember the name of the case now. But a very recent case from the 9th Circuit has taken the opposite view that it protects only a collective right, as they said.

In other words, it's only the right of a militia to possess arms and not an individual right.

Particularly since you have this conflict -- cert was denied in the Emerson case -- I'm not sure it's been sought in the other one or will be. That's sort of the issue that's likely to come before the Supreme Court when you have conflicting views.

I know the Miller case side-stepped that issue. An argument was made back in 1939 that this provides only a collective right. And the court didn't address that. They said, instead, that the firearm at issue there -- I think it was a sawed-off shotgun -- is not the type of weapon protected under the militia aspect of the Second Amendment.

So people try to read the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue. But that's still very much an open issue.

FEINGOLD: I understand that case could come before you. I'm wondering if you would anticipate that in such a case that a serious question would be: Which interpretation is correct?

ROBERTS: Well, anytime you have two different courts of appeals taking opposite positions, I think you have to regard that as a serious question. That's not expressing a view one way or the other. It's just saying, I know the 9th Circuit thinks it's only a collective right. I know the 5th Circuit thinks it's an individual right. And I know the job of the Supreme Court is to resolve circuit conflicts. So I do think that issue is one that's likely to come before the court.

Posted: 9/15/2005 8:15:01 AM EDT

[#6]

i still can't shake this feeling that roberts is gonna be another unpleasant surprise like that pole-smoker, suiter...

john ashcroft, on the other hand, we KNOW damn well where he stands on 2a and the rkba!

Posted: 9/15/2005 8:59:01 AM EDT

[#7]

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.

You may have more experience with the guy, but I still have a hard time believing it. Politicians never change their minds, they just pretend to when someone puts a gun to their heads.

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:03:28 AM EDT

[#8]

What happens if the Supreme Court declares the 2nd is a collective right?

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:05:58 AM EDT

[#9]

.

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:22:15 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
i still can't shake this feeling that roberts is gonna be another unpleasant surprise like that pole-smoker, suiter...

john ashcroft, on the other hand, we KNOW damn well where he stands on 2a and the rkba!

Any REAL reason for that?

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:24:30 AM EDT

[#11]

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

Yeah, because he is not answering ANY question
reguarding case law that may come before the
SCOTUS.

Tin foil too tight again?

It's a fundamental question about the basic nature of our Rights.

As for "tin foil", mark my words, this guy is going to screw us over. I hope I'm wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time "Republican" SC judges eviscerated the Bill of Rights.

Why should we "mark your words"? What do you know that we don't?

Give examples of times other "Republican" SC justices have trampled on the Bill of Rights.

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:28:12 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
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.

FWIW, I don't really care if you like GW or not.

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:32:15 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
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.

You suspect??????????

Your logic?????????

You really don't know anything about what he will or will not do.

You really don't understand the proceedings.

You just hate Bush and anything he does.

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:35:09 AM EDT

[#14]

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

He has refused to answer many questions that will be coming before the SC so this doesn't surprise me at all.

BigDozer66

Posted: 9/15/2005 9:53:34 AM EDT

[#15]

I just go this off of FOXNEWS:

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts said. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

I guess we shall see

Posted: 9/15/2005 10:01:32 AM EDT

[#16]

I like the guy..... He made Ted Kennedy look like an uneducated fool.....not that it took much...but it was good.

I think President Bush made a very good choice, I dont think that there is any way they cant confirm him.

He is within his right to not answer questions that may be addressed by the court in the future, the precedent was set long ago not to answer questions of opinion.

Posted: 9/15/2005 10:46:48 AM EDT

[#17]

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".

As I explained in another thread, In the American and, in fact, all "English Systems" Judges are supposed to make law in many circumstances. It is called Common Law, without it we would have no contract law, no tort law, etc. In regards to statute law there are cases when the statue could mean more than one thing. In these instances Judges must determine legislative intent.

I always find it odd that people think that a judge making law is a bad thing. That is what they are supposed to do… If you don’t like it move to France, there legal system would likely be more to your liking.

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

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us