Not your idea, huh? Well Miller isn't my idea of "reasonable" 2nd-amendment jurisprudence. So where does that leave us?
Certainly the opinions of any independent court are going to be more independent, impartial, and stable than the opinions of a political attorney general (and all attorneys general are political - I'm not singling out Aschcroft here) who has to vacate his office every 4-8 years or so to someone of the opposite party. It's beginning to sound like you want to impeach the 9th Circuit court just for being the 9th Circuit court.
The 9th circuit is free to challenge the existing federal law.
They weren't challenging it; they were challenging an interpretation of it, as I explained.
But, until a final determination is made, the federal law should be obeyed.
What are you saying? That lower federal courts can't determine that federal officials have exceeded their legal authority and enjoin them to stop? You're not making sense.
To: robertpaulsen
You're not making sense.
513 inquest
_____________________________________
Finally.. You got it kiddo.
The 9th Circuit is not "any independent court". They are the most overturned LIBERAL Circuit Court in the country.
Second, this wasn't a "court" by any stretch of the term. It was two guys -- and the third guy disagreed. If the 9th agrees to hear it en banc and comes to the same conclusion, I may temper my remarks.
Third, I said my piece on the other thread. I am not interested in debating it again on this thread. I gave my opinion. You disagree.
Miller gave us nothing. There was no ruling. The defense never showed. The case was remanded.