This morning there was a great clip on guns, the pending appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and a little more.

It was all anti gun but the truth is they correctly brought out how gun rights may be limited once YOUR President appoints a new Justice. His appointee will be a swing vote for sure.

Of course, they had to put a young girl and her mother on telling how they are fighting to remove guns since the shooting at VA Tech. These people were incorrect in their statements about how guns kill people and how many lives would be saved if guns are removed from private ownership.

John Paul Stevens, who is retiring, is good for nothing. Whoever replaces him will not be a swing justice, but another hack of the same stripe.

I hate it when dreamers use the word "if" when they either know, or should know, that their idea is impossible to realize.

"Lives would be saved, --if-- guns were removed from private gun ownership."

If saving lives is the goal, how come none of the same people are saying, "Lives would be saved, --if-- cars were removed from private ownership" or "Lives would be saved, --if-- medical mistakes were not made." The lives lost to these two causes dwarf the lives lost to guns, whether accidental or necessary.

I hope the president will be thoughtful and make sure that the next Supreme Court Justice brings diversity to the court . . . by appointing someone who is a Protestant.

If he does, this person will be the only one!

Love these remarks!

Don't forget that "IF" bathtubs were outlawed no one would drown in a bathtub. Rarely does anyone drown in a shower, and a lot more people drown in tubs, pools, buckets, toilets, fish ponds, etc. than are ever victims of "Gun violence".

If CNN said that, it is neither the truth nor the swing vote. A 2nd grader knows better.

__________________
Sure you did

Of course, the great problem of the counterfactual argument (the "if this one thing had been different, but everything else had remained the same" argument) is that it is impossible to know what would have happened if the one thing actually had been different. If someone could wave a magic wand and make all firearms disappear, violent folks likely still would be committing violent crimes, only with bombs, or swords, or knives, or spears, or pointy rocks. Violent folks managed to carry out an awful lot of violence long before firearms were invented.

Is that true? All the current justices are Catholic?

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Your President has made his choice. She is Elena Kagan. Ms Kagan has never served on the bench as a Judge but has been Dean of Harvard Law School. I am trying to learn her views on guns.

I now know she lives an alternate lifestyle, she is from Chicago and was the moderator of the gun debate several years ago at Harvard.

From what I can learn, she is one that tackles issues by snipping away on them a little at a time.

Being from Chicago, she will have an anti gun mindset.

Our president in all his wisdom, is bringing diversity to the supreme court, by picking a relatively young woman, who will bring her own unique insight on the constitution. She comes from academia instead of the courtroom, and she is a champion of gay rights, including the right to marry. She is opposed to military recruitment at schools of law. It is probable that she mirrors our president's philosophy, regarding the law, culture and our constitution. I predict that the senate will affirm her nomination.

Elana Kagan on the 2A during confirmation hearings as Solicitor General:

"The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment . . . . I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

A lot of people say something they do not stand behind when it comes to getting a job.

Why is it that nobody is posting her reactions at a Second Amendment discussion in 2003, where a lot of anti gun beliefs were stated as she moderated the gun control debate?

The lady is from Chicago. She is closely aligned with anti gun people. All her residences have been in anti gun states. She is a member of the Bar in two states, both of which are anti gun.

Besides that, she is just about as ugly as a person can be. I thought I was ugly but she got me beat.

There is no doubt about her being confirmed. The Senate votes are there and some Republicans will confirm her as well.

Then again, and it is unfortunate, some Republicans are just Democrats using an another name.

I had a professor once who said, "The law is whatever the judge says the law is." So if Ms Kagan said Heller is settled she can change her mind as a jurist....and what if there is no confrontation...lots of wiggle room there. My guess is, Obama appointed her and she is anti gun.......period....no chipping away.

"...in case of confrontation."

What is that supposed to mean?!

She's never been a judge and we're going to put her on the Supreme Court of the United States. Only the infinite idiocy of Obama could come up with something that stupid.

This country is getting what it deserves...

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Yes, and no... Jewish and Catholic...

I don't care what religion a supreme court justice is as long as they interpret the law accurately.

I would normally agree with this. However some people are devout in their religion and follow the teaching of their denomination. If their religious belief is against abortion, they will rule that way out of fear of their God.

The same with the Freemasons or Masonery. If a Judge is a Mason, then he is bound by the laws of Freemasonery to not allow any fello Mason that stands before him to spend a night in jail. The exceptions to that is if the person is accused of murder or treason.

This is why the vetting process takes place. People want to know what groups the appointee belong so they know which way the wind will blow if confirmed.

If a justice takes a stance counter to the law because of their religion, then they are not accurately interpreting the law.

In the end, I don't really think that we disagree. We both want the rule of law, not nine people who make up the rules as they please.

No, there's a Jew or two. But I'd be pretty happy with a few more Catholics like Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia. Tom's point is well taken (the hypocrisy of the commies' crying for diversity), but actually nominal religion doesn't tell us much about politics, at least among the Catholics.

We both know many cases are overturned on appeal. Sometimes this happens only when it reaches the SCOTUS. Different Judges have different opinions of the law. The same with attorneys. They have different ideas as to what the law says. Your President is one that SAYS he studied Constitutional Law but has been way wrong on his reading of it.

Consider this. If there was a hard law in black and white, there would not be divided votes in the court. I think the last issue on guns had a 5-4 vote. That means five saw the law one way and four saw it another. It is all up to the interpretation of the law by each Justice.

I cannot remember when the last time I heard of a 9-0 decision. They vote their beliefs or religion.

IF a professor or older student (>21 years old) had had a permit and a weapon, lives would have been saved. Duh!! I'm so sick of these idiots.

This country is headed for something it has never seen due to our corrupt government and judicial system..

That pretty much sums it up.

Yet WE elect these people and as the last Presidential election proved, different voters have different ideas as well.

I think your assessment is correct but you are describing the symptom and not the disease. The disease is a morally corrupt voting populace. Until that changes, things will only get worse.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

I don't think it has to do with how the descenters saw the law. They just don't like it because it doesn't fit their personal agenda, so they just claim that it doesn't say what it does. They are completely disinterested in basing their decisions on the Constitution unless it fits their marxist/socialist agenda.

While some areas of the Constitution may be grey and open to different interpretation, the 2A giving people the right to own and carry handguns is pretty clear cut.

Totally agree. There is MUCH additional documentation by the creators of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to leave no confusion on the issue.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Well, I am likely one of the strongest supporters of the 2nd here but even I have to say there is confusion in the language of the SA.

Most all of the scholars agree that it was very poorly worded.

I may not agree with some of the anti 2nd arguments but some have been successfully argued and upheld.

Try reading this site:
Misconceptions About The 2nd Amendment

It pretty much sums up the case for being poorly worded. Also most Constitutional experts and historians will agree it should have been more concise.

My bet is that there will be a SCOTUS hearing on it in the next two years. I only hope we like the ruling