Posted on 02/09/2003 7:35:21 AM PST by nwrep
Justice Janice Brown
Supreme Court: Moving On, Moving In, Moving Up
A vacancy could open up in the U.S. Supreme Court soon
By Daniel Klaidman, Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper NEWSWEEK
Feb. 17 issue: It's been nine years since the last vacancy opened up on the U.S. Supreme Court. That historically long drought could end this year with at least one resignation. Eager White House aides are stepping up preparation efforts, vetting candidates and contemplating a special media operation to deal with a potential confirmation battle.
Other observers think Bush could take another approach, appointing California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown instead. Brown is a conservative African-American who's ruled against affirmative action and abortion rights. Her nomination would let Bush add the court's third woman and second African-American in one swoop. And White House lawyers have already interviewed her. Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues cases before the court, believes Brown could even get the nod for chief justice. "An African-American female nominee is not going to be filibustered," he says. She doesn't have a record that will stop Democrats in their tracks. And after months of bitter Senate fights over nominations to lower courts, that could have an appeal all its own.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
And all too true.
You betcha.
Which means the fall of 2004 should be a VERY interesting political sideshow.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — have state assault weapons bans.
I know this,but just because they have them,it doens't mean they are Constitutionally valid,any more than a state law allowing slavery or denying a defendant a lawyer would be valid. The only reason they continue to exist is the authorities are VERY careful to never arrest anybody prominent with big bucks for violating these laws. If they were ever to arrest somebody like Ted Turner for possessing a semi-auto rifle (and you KNOW he and his bodyguards do) in NY,his wealth and access to the press would mean he could and would appeal any conviction,and then he would take it to the Supreme Court,and they pretty much wouldn't have any other choice but to address this issue. This is a issue the SC has been running from since 1939. No way are the cops going to bust anybody with the power and ability to get these laws overturned. They make too much money in fines and legal fees from charging these felonies,and then letting otherwise innocents to plea down to a lesser charge and a big fine. Not to mention allowing property confiscation by the authorities without a wimper.
I know,and the answer is "no!". Actual criminals end up getting charged with more serious crimes like murder in this case,and the weapons charges are dropped. The ONLY people who actually get a trial for weapons charges like this are people they don't have any other charges to file on.
Is this a stupid fed. law that Clinton passed to make himself look good? Yes.
Let's not forget who was the originator of this law,and who pushed it,Bush-1. Like the royalty he thinks he is,he didn't even wait for Congress to vote on his ban,he did it and more by using executive orders.
I think we all need to hear more,but she seems to have a disturbing tendency to lean towards government authority and power over freedom. As anybody who has read my posts on FR knows,I am a STRONG supporter of states rights,but NOT when these alleged "rights" trumps the US Constitution. When in doubt,err towards the side of freedom!
You are right,and I am wrong. I was mistaken,and blamed her for another judge's statements and/or rulings. I can only blame it on posting when too tired. Sorry,and my apologies to you all,as well as to Judge Brown.
So what? People who own sea-going ships can still own cannons. I know a guy who has a tank. John Travolta owns a Korean War fighter.
There were no restrictions.
Yes,there were. To own and sail a "war vessel" required a "letter of Marquis". Maybe this is "picking nits" because it's a hollow arguement on both our parts. Nobody who wasn't going into piracy bothered to arm their vessels with cannons because they were both expensive and dangerous,and the ones who did get involved in piracy were treated rather harshly. The fact that any citizen without a criminal record who has the financial resources CAN own a tank or aircraft with functional large caliber weapons is also irrelevant. Damn few people want to own them,and there is no possible way to buy one illegally in this country.
BTW,PLEASE note that there are no restrictions today on buying or possessing a black powder cannon. You can even buy blueprints or kits to build your own.
The idea that the Second Amendment includes a limitation on the type of arms which may be owned is a new idea invented by those who are not willing to amend the Constitution to outlaw nuclear weapons.
HorseHillary! It is clear to anyone who has done much reading of the Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers that this was discussed in a genaral sense,and it was commonly accepted by the people who wrote the US Constitution and insisted on the Bill of Rights that INDIVIDUALS had a CLEAR right to own INDIVIDUAL weapons so they could be called on in time of need to form a active militia,and that the towns and states were assumed to be the ones to own and control the "crew-served weapons" of the day. The obvious reasons for this is nobody is going to carry a howitzer or other field piece around slung over their shoulder,and towns,counties,and states were/are better equipped to stand the financial burden of buying,storing,and caring for these weapons,as well as offering a central storage location for the militia to rally to in order to field these weapons. Cannons kept in a barn on private property that nobody knows about aren't of much use in fighting a enemy with.
All this is extra,though. The CLEAR intent of the 2nd Amendment is to insure the individual citizen have access to the same individual weapons as the individual federal or other army soldier.
BTW,the ONLY people I have EVER heard use the nuclear weapons line are rabid anti-gunners who think this is a clever way to "prove" citizens/civilians don't have a Constitutional right to own military-style weapons.
BTW,the ONLY people I have EVER heard use the nuclear weapons line are rabid anti-gunners who think this is a clever way to "prove" citizens/civilians don't have a Constitutional right to own military-style weapons. The whole "Letter of Marquis" history shuts this arguement down cold,but they do their best to ignore it. Theorhetically,the government COULD issue a LOM to some individuals to allow them to own/possess nuke weapons,and the fact that they will never issues these letters does nothing to change the fact that they have to power to do this if they want to. There is nothing in law that would prevent them from doing it.
Never heard of Ms. Majette. Mind enlightening me, please, dear FReepers?
foreverfree
The term you are looking for is Letter of Marque, not "Marquis." A "Marquis" is an order of nobility and peer of the realm, a notch above an Earl and below a duke.
Understand the concept - part of judicial restraint is ruling only on the specific matters brought before the court. If a given party does not make the proper points and raise all relevant issues, it should not be the job of the court to go and find them on their own.
Sure enough! I REALLY need to start taking more naps!
Bush-1 signed a exectuive order banning the importation of all military rifles and parts,and he used another XO to ban hi-capacity magazines (over 10 round) to anybody but LEO's and the military. He is the spiritual father of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban,and I have zero doubt he would have signed it into law if Congress had been able to pass it back then.
Letters of Marque and Reprisal are authority to act. They did not come with weapons or any unneeded authority to obtain weapons.
The legality of black-powder cannons is irrelevant. Sea-going warfare today requires guns capable of penetrating significant armor. There was no intention to deny this to the people of the United States.
Please offer as an indication of our Founder's intent, any prohibition of a specific weapon of war prior to 1939.
I can't find the quote this morning, but at the time of our founding, it was said (paraphrasing) that we would not have to fear tyranny because "Americans are equipped with every terrible instrument of war".
If our Founders had meant for people to only be armed with muskets and black-powder cannons, they could have said so.
"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." TENCH COXE of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
I am sure the anti-gunners will now point out that Coxe never mentioned the "terrible implements" of sailors, and that the "unlimited power of the sword" means that only sharp-edged weapons are covered.
The meaning is clear to me: if the government has it, then the people may have it.
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.