Replies

When making an argument that appellate courts are not as important as the USSC to the Democrats, the argument has to hold against all cases, yet it doesn't. If what you say is true, then why did Estrada get filibustered? How about Pickering?

Your course of reasoning is as follows: It's okay for a bank to hire convicted thieves so long as they don't hold an executive position. The American public isn't going to buy into this tactic in my opinion.

HawaiianGecko said: "When making an argument that appellate courts are not as important as the USSC to the Democrats, the argument has to hold against all cases, ..."

You are confusing, I think, what "is" versus what "should be".

You are correct that the Demoncrats fired their wad by filibustering lower court judges and now their opposition has aligned itself so as to prevent any further filibusters. I believe that this was a mistake on their part. They now have little ability to mount a filibuster against anyone appointed by Bush to the Supreme Court.

From a practical standpoint, they succeeded in keeping a couple of very good judges off the lower courts in trade for having to allow Bush virtually anyone he wants now. That would be a bad trade for Republicans if it happened to them and its a bad trade for Demoncrats now.

My point was that the Demoncrats would have been justified in distinguishing Supreme court justices from lower judges by the practical issues I mentioned but they held back none of their strength for the important battles yet to come.

To use your own analogy, the bank may have hired convicted thieves, but those in executive positions are now assuring that these thieves are frisked everyday to prevent loss. Though not an ideal "bank", the opposite case, honest underlings and corrupt executives, is a corrupt organization that cannot be saved short of replacing the executives.

HawaiianGecko said: "The American public isn't going to buy into this tactic in my opinion."

The American public hasn't raised much of a fuss, actually. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is dominated by activist judges who make up their own Constitution when they make decisions. They are the most overturned court by the Supreme Court, but the higher court doesn't take all the cases they should.

My hope is that Bush gets to appoint three really good Justices that are determined to reign in the outlaw Ninth Circuit. To do this, they will need to take virtually every case which deserves review, review it quickly, and send it back until it is decided correctly.

There have been cases decided by the Ninth which have set binding precedent on lower courts that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. For lack of Supreme Court attention, Kalifornia is now free to infringe to their hearts content. Their reluctance to ban firearms completely stem, I believe, only from the realization that they are wrong and that eventually they will be told so by the Supreme Court. If they build their house of cards too high, it will fall.

Until that time, Kalifornians are denied their right to keep and bear arms. Fees for background checks, registration, outlawed firearms, outlawed magazines, prohibitions against bearing arms, so-called "safety" requirements, etc. are all infringements. They are considering now a requirement to have serial numbers on all cartridges and only outlaws will have bullets without serial numbers.