Less Than $830 To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 09/22/2020 2:34:54 PM PDT by rktman
There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
If she loves the Second A, she rocks.
Want a hankie cry baby?
There are other issues besides the abortion issue...being a one note voter doesn’t necessarily mean the vote goes to the best candidate...just pointing that out. Many Americans look at many more qualifications when we are looking at a candidate to support or at a possible judge to elect.
Fixed it.
-PJ
I wish all left wing jerks had been aborted by their moms.
I tell that to their faces. Drives them nuttier.
A devout catholic and a firm believer of 2nd Amendment Rights. That is just A OK by me!!! Confirm!!!!}
.............................................
A OK with this Baptist too. As long as they are constitutionalist/originalists, it wouldn’t bother me a whit if all 9 of them were Catholic.
“Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment,...”
There’s doubt, for those who have read and understood related cases, precedents, and can really read and understand the following. There’s quite a bit of doubt. Look for, “Barrett, Circuit Judge, dissenting.”
https://casetext.com/case/kanter-v-barr
Her language left the door wide open for an assault weapons ban. She also had quite a bit to say about things “Catholic.” She was signaling for populist noise in a case that wasn’t really about the Second Amendment.
She wrote a dissent in favor of felons possessing firearms, in cases where courts might decide that individual felons aren’t dangerous. But some of the language in her arguments in the same document allows for bans against categories of firearms (for example, a ban against modern sporting rifles (AKA “assault weapons”).
Of related note (in re. a citation in the aforementioned dissent), many have been misled to believe that Eugene Volokh is of the opinion that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional, but that is not correct.
Expert On Gun Regulation Says “Assault Weapons” Bans Are Useless
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Hans Bader
December 19, 2012
https://cei.org/blog/expert-gun-regulation-says-assault-weapons-bans-are-useless
“Although Volokh says that assault weapons bans would be useless, he also says that they would likely be constitutional, since ‘such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don’t substantially burden the constitutional right’ to keep and bear arms.”
Go to about 11:50 in that YouTube video. Barrett’s strategy has been that of a politician. Who would she be working for?
And this...
Catholic Judges in Capital Cases [Information in re. Amy Coney Barrett]
Marquette Law Review, Notre Dame Law School ^ | 1998 | Amy Coney Barrett, John H. Garvey
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3667995/posts
And this...
Amy Coney Barrett Is Not a Safe Pick for the Supreme Court.
https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-is-not-a-safe-pick-for-the-supreme-court/
If you want someone with a record of proof of defending the Second Amendment, have a look at this.
Britt Grant was Solicitor General of Georgia and one of the filers of the brief against an AR-15 ban.
What our political opponents (Democrats) think of Britt Grant:
Oppose the Confirmation of Britt Grant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-confirmation-britt-grant-u-s-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit/
https://www.afj.org/issue/gun-safety/
“Britt Grant (Eleventh Circuit) argued that a city ordinance prohibiting possession of AR-15 style weapons or large-capacity magazines violated the Second Amendment.”
More on that (other issues)...
https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Grant-Snapshot-8.25.20.pdf
Barbara Lapoa would be the wisest choice this close to the election, though.
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/barbara-lagoa
A Second Amendment Grade for President Trump So Far
[Example of Federalist Society publication about the Second Amendment]
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/a-second-amendment-grade-for-president-trump-so-far
Cuban opinions have shifted, says poll
http://panthernow.com/2019/01/18/cuban-opinions-have-shifted-says-poll/
PantherNOW
FIU STUDENT MEDIA
POSTED BY: JOSHUA CEBALLOS JANUARY 18, 2019
By: Yeskanisayka Urbina/Staff Writer
[Excerpts:]
“The survey shows that during the midterm election, 46.7 percent of Cuban-Americans were motivated to vote for a better economy and jobs, while 29.3 percent voted for healthcare and 23.7 percent voted for gun control.
The survey shows that along with Cuban-American residents leaning more towards a Republican party, it shows the division there is between the Cuban community in South Florida.”
...
“’I know I was worried about the Trump issue,’ said Hugh Gladwin, the former director of the Institute for Public Opinion Research and former Associate Professor in the Department of Global and Sociocultural Studies.
‘One reason polling itself is having a huge problem with what’s been going on and we do this poll on our own. We know we have to keep the methodology good.’
“The 2018 Cuba Poll results can be viewed on cri.fiu.edu “
That's the communist's code for an "originalist" who "Adheres to the Constitution of the United States of America as written"...
Meanwhile, Fox News has been pushing for Barrett pretty hard. Here, Fox News implies that she’s already been chosen for the nomination. Fox News also pushed Barrett before Justice Kavanaugh was picked.
Amy Coney Barrett is not ‘wildly’ out of mainstream: Brit Hume
Fox News
Caleb Parke
September 22, 2020
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-britt-hume
“With Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s name on President Trump’s short list to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it’s going to be a “very intense” process, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume argued Monday night.”
I look at their voting Records and make my decisions.
I always vote for my enumerated rights first.
2-A is at the top of that list.
Red America does not have a gun problem, young black male democrats, who live in long time democrat governed locations, have a massive gun and homicide problem, according to the online FBI data bank.
It is also notable that modern sporting rifles are seldom involved in the constant firearms assaults in the democrat homicide for recreation cultures.
There was an error in my comment #47. It’s Lagoa. I misspelled her name.
YES! YES! I hope all of that is TRUE!
If Trump and McConnell manage to get Barrett confirmed to SCOTUS, there’s gonna be enough liberal tears to refloat the Exxon Valdez
There is NOTHING in the constitution that says hearings are mandatory, AND Amy just went through the confirmation process 2 years ago so I say SCREW the hearings JUST VOTE and move on!!!
It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.
You know, it’s a funny thing. We all love us some First Amendment (and the others) - but ironically (per Antonin Scalia) the first eight amendments were, in a way, mere window dressing. How so?The Federalists didn’t want any discussion of rights at all in the Constitution; America inherited a Common Law tradition, and in the nature of things rights under common law were nowhere comprehensively cataloged anywhere.
The Antifederalists were able to force the Federalists to promise a bill of rights by amendment, and so the Federalists developed a fall-back position. The “enumerated” rights in the first eight amendments articulate only those rights which tyrants had historically abused - not an exhaustive list, which would inevitably be incomplete and controversial. The Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.and the Tenth AmendmentThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.cover the rights of the people and of the states which are not enumerated - but (in the First and Second Amendments in particular) the wording is kind of peculiar in the enumerated rights. What is “the” freedom of speech? What is “the” RKBA? The answer, per Scalia, is that “the” freedom of speech was (hence, properly, is) freedom of speech as it existed at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment. That is, in a way the expression “the” freedom of speech actually begs the question as to what was in the common law at the time. And this is why pornography laws survived the ratification of the First Amendment unchanged. And also, pace Justice Brennan’s New York Times Co. v. Sullivan claim that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”why libel and slander laws survived the ratification of the First Amendment unchanged. Until the Warren Court’s unanimous 1964 Sullivan decision ran roughshod over libel law . . .If “the” RKBA refers to a right as recognized and as limited in the Founding Era it is not as simple as saying that “open carry is constitutional carry.” On that account Justice Scalia did a deep dive into the common law circa 1788 in order to write Heller. And it is not a one-page opinion.
In the late stages of metastatic pancreatic cancer, surely in severe pain, Ginsburg had one last wish: not just to spare her legacy, but to save the court from the politicization and delegitimization it will suffer if Trump replaces her.
BINGO!
It should have always been a “STATES RIGHTS” issue; it’s immoral, it’s anti-GOD, it’s murder, but it will always rest on the issue of “is this just a tissue mass or is it a human being”.
I live in California, in this state you will be lucky if they don’t start calling the killing of a 10 year old kid just the later term abortion!
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.