Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.
In fact, it says "...in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." -- Acts 10:35 NAS
He is in fact a constitutional scholar. It is part of his undocumented credentials. I sure didn’t imply that he was a very good one.
Then neither does the First.
Joe Biden appears to have flip flopped on opposing "activist" judges.
Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said. ”I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would strike down laws restricting property rights.” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now, it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find it attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.”pp 235-236 of "My Grandfather's Son" by Clarence ThomasSince I didn’t remember making the statement in the first place, I didn’t know how to respond to it. All I could say in reply was that “it has been some time since I have read Professor Macedo … But I don’t believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court.” It was, I knew, a weak answer. Fortunately, though, the young lawyers who had helped prepare me for the hearing had loaded all of my speeches into a computer and at the first break in the proceedings they looked this one up. The senator, they found, had wrenched my words out of context. I looked at the text and saw that the passage he’d read out loud had been immediately followed by two other sentences: “But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy.” The point I’d been making was the opposite of the one that Senator Biden claimed I had made.
Yes and if we would get back to a biblical foundation we could get back on track. Ideas of respect, personal responsibility, not deifying one group over another, minding your own salvation first, avoiding occultism(New Age, Buhhdism, etc.) and self worship(Hello Oprah) are ideas that work. It comes from the architect of the universe. Tribalism, socialism, collectivism and tyranny are an anathema to Christianity and thus to God.
Well now, that’s interesting. If Sotomayor is right, then State National Guards are illegal. To you and me that is ludicrous. But to Sotmayor and her Marxist buddies, it makes good sense. The only entity, in Marxism, permitted to be armed with military weapons is the national army. They will never trust a bunch of South Carolina rubes, organized into a militia and armed, to toe the Party Line (no pun intended).
Is there anyone who does not understand that, according to The Marxist Onada, the American Constitution is flawed? He has stated same publicly and in unequivocal terms (Google Obama and flawed Constitution and you will see and hear him say precisely that). Unless something in our Constitution passes Marxist muster, the Constitution is irrelevant.
Nothing that Sotomayor says should be a surprise. She is what she is.
You can bet your sweet ass the Peoples Republic of New Jersey doesn't!
Damn good question that I hope a GOP senator follows up with!
I can’t argue with your screen name.
It seems the NRA haters are the ones sitting on the sidelines without a spine when the work has to be done.
No, the answer is, we hold up this nomination for 3 years, just like they did with Estrada.
What’s sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander!
CA....
Oleg Volk.
You might explain the process to the poster on #61.
That split may be resolved, if the 9th Circuit undertakes en banc review. A vote on that is due from then "real soon now."
-- My point is that the circuit court ignored 150 years of law - didn't even discuss it. --
It also bastardized the Presser decision, asserting that is stands for the OPPOSITE proposition that it states.
-- That's either abysmal ignorance or deliberate malice, my vote's for the latter. --
I vote "deliberate malice" too. Also, the SCOTUS, in Heller, did the same thing with the Miller case - read it for the OPPOSITE of what it stands for, as to they type of weapon contemplated by the framers to be within the ambit of the RKBA.
There's no way out of the conundrum, best I can tell. Congress, the federal Court, and the executive ALL aim to minimize the ability of the people to project force.
Federal Rights supercede all else. 2nd amendment is specifically stated in the bill of rights. All else is subject to the States. It is not a states rights issue.
Funny coincidence — neither does Sotomayor.
Sotomayor Stands Alone
Townhall.com | July 13, 2009 | Mario Diaz
Posted on 07/14/2009 7:28:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2292247/posts
Bovine scat.
Look at the date on that case.
What case? No United States Supreme Court decision has ever applied the Second Amendment to the states.
)0 only has so much political capital
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.