Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on September 29, 2005, 11:45:21 AM
-
Well, he got in without ever telling anyone what he really thinks.
The result of Borking is clearly evident.
I certainly have no idea how Roberts will turn out as Chief Justice.
78-22 confirmation.
The "nays"...
California: both Boxer and Feinstein.
Delaware: Biden
Hawaii: both Inouye and Akaka
Illinois: Both Obama and Durbin
Indiana: Bayh
Iowa: Harkin
Maryland: both Milkulski and Sarbanes
Massachusetts:both Kerry and Kennedy
Michigan: Stabenow
Minnesota: Dayton
Nevada: Reid
New Jersey: both Lautenberg and Corzine
New York: both Shumer and Clinton
Rhode Island: Reed
Washington: Cantwell
Pretty much a "blue state" thing, so I guess it will turn out OK. If those folks don't like him, I probably will.
Still, he's in for life now. We'll just have to wait and see what he really thinks. Looks like everyone's learned how not to get Borked now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Massachusetts:both Kerry and Kennedy
wow - to think we could have had a teddy think alike as POTUS
LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, he got in without ever telling anyone what he really thinks.
What he thinks doesn't matter.
-
His personal opinions on things do not matter in general. In specific, however, his opinion on the methods used to perform as a judge DO matter.
Basically, if he thinks that calico cats should be executed by law, who cares? I trust his professionalism to oversee the great Calico Debate of 2007 without regard to his personal opinion.
If, however, he thinks that it is the role of a Supreme Court justice to take steps to 'legislate from the bench' and disregard the rules of the court when the issue comes up so that he can implement his opinion, that's the problem.
The guy seems pretty stand-up to me so far, I haven't heard anything that makes me think he'll do a bad job, the above is just my interpretation of the sentiment behind the "without telling anyone what he really thinks" concern is.
-
I am pleased this day. Blessed are we that Kerry was defeated.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I haven't heard anything that makes me think he'll do a bad job,
Exactly. No one has heard anything about anything.
The point is the Senate Inquisitions have schooled potential judges very well.
Those that pass have no revealing record and make no revealing comments.
I don't think anyone has a clue how Roberts will rule from the bench. Conservatives could be in for as much of a suprise as Liberals. But he's annointed now; Long Live the Chief Justice.
-
Personally, I think that a proven track record of a very high level of competency in the practice of law, adherence to the rule of law and the constitution, and a record and ideals free of judicial activism or legislation from the bench and a personal life that is beyond reproach, ie, high moral character, is all that any otherwise qualified nominee for Supreme Court should have to show.
If personal views of nominees were free to be scrutinized by the politicians it would wind up being a purely partisan thing, depending on which party has the majority, and just as important, it could predjudice cases that come before them, as has been pointed out.
-
Roberts spent most of his legal career representing others, not on the bench.
He was appointed to the District of Columbia Circuit two years ago. IIRC, that's his only "bench" experience.
Roberts has participated in more than 300 decisions and orders since joining the D.C. Circuit in May 2003. He has written majority opinions for the court in 40 of those cases, according to the Justice Department.
Because of the D.C. Circuit's jurisdiction over federal regulatory agencies, its docket is heavy on technical cases not likely to cause controversy at Roberts's upcoming confirmation hearings.
40 opinions written; Chief Justice for life.
I dunno.... I'd have liked to see someone with a bit more of a known track record. But... LLtCJ.
-
I feel he has a good head on his sholders.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
What he thinks doesn't matter.
You can't be serious. We won't know what he thinks until it affects our daily lives. That's pretty scary.
-
From what I've heard from him I like. He looks, sounds, and speaks like an honest level headed person who has as much respect for the law as his personal "ideals".
He seems like a judge that could benifit either party depending the way he sees the constitution.
-
If he values precedent as much as he went on about it, I don't see a lot to worry about.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If he values precedent as much as he went on about it, I don't see a lot to worry about.
And THATS what scares the hell outta me. There's a lotta truly screwed up precedents out there. Presidents too.
-
There's probably some precedents that need unprecedented overturning.
-
In other words, you guys are in favor of "activist judges"?
-
I'm in favor of constitutionalist judges.
-
I don't know... am I?
For example if some "activist judge" really stretched out the Constitution in a previous ruling... a way-out-there "precedent"... would another judge that came along later and reversed that "precedent" in a ruling that returned everything to a "constructionist" reading of the Constitution...
would the second judge be called an "activist"? Or just a "constructionist"?
-
I guess that's the rub. AFAIK, the supreme court doesn't go back and change precedent on a whim.
Which rulings would you like to see reversed?
-
Miller vs US, 1939
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Miller vs US, 1939
That's it? Sawed off shotguns?
-
Reversing Miller vs US would be a very very good start.
-
I think you guys are dreaming if you think US v Miller will ever get another look.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
That's it? Sawed off shotguns?
Nope. The core is the Firearms Act of 1934. The constitutionality of denying the average citizen the same arms employed by the military. The legality of Taxing firearms as a 'revenue' measure vs it's actual passage and employment as a method of denial of the right to keep and bear arms contrary to the second ammendment.
To put a 200 dollar tax on a 5 dollar shotgun is not a 'revenue measure'. It's denial of constitutional rights.
-
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.
IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP. (Reference 22, P. 168)
Yet the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned corporation. So why is congress aloud to break the law and we are not?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think you guys are dreaming if you think US v Miller will ever get another look.
The strange case of United States v. Miller
By Dr. Michael S. Brown
web posted August 6, 2001
In a recent letter attacking Attorney General Ashcroft's gun policy, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) misquoted a section of a 1938 Supreme Court decision known as United States v. Miller. Gun rights advocates loudly protested and offered the correct quote which is more favorable to gun rights.
The Miller case is important, because it was the last time the Supreme Court ruled directly on a Second Amendment defense. It is unusual in that people on both sides of a political debate claim that it supports their position. Some say that it reaffirms an individual right to own firearms and some say it does just the opposite.
With the extreme polarization of the modern gun debate, this case has assumed an importance far beyond what anyone expected in 1938. It should come as no surprise that behind this strange state of affairs is a very strange court case.
The story begins with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was the first federal law regulating firearms. Prior to that time, it was generally believed that the Constitution did not grant the federal government this power
The Firearms Act levied a prohibitive $200 dollar tax on machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Government officials claimed that these were the weapons of choice for the criminal gangs that evolved during prohibition.
This law was enacted during a period when a determined effort was being made to expand federal police power at the expense of the states. A crafty legislative tactic of that time was to construct new federal criminal laws as commerce measures, which could be justified as revenue producers in the event they were challenged by supporters of state's rights.
Some have speculated that the 1934 Firearms Act was passed to provide job security for federal agents who were threatened with unemployment by the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933.
Like most criminal cases, U.S. v. Miller involved some rather unsavory characters.
Jack Miller, a bank robber and moonshiner with many enemies, felt the need to carry a sawed off shotgun without paying the tax. He and his associate, Frank Layton, had the misfortune to be caught transporting it from Oklahoma to Arkansas and were arrested in June of 1938 by federal agents on charges of violating the Firearms Act.
They were brought before United States District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon in Fort Smith, Arkansas who encouraged them to plead not guilty and appointed an attorney to represent them. He then found in their favor, declaring that the relevant section of the Firearms Act was in violation of the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
Federal law enforcement authorities were not pleased. Judge Ragon's decision threatened the expansion of federal power, so the case was quickly appealed to the Supreme Court.
The resulting decision issued in May of 1939 stated that "in the absence of any evidence" the Supreme Court could not say that a sawed off shotgun had any relationship to the militia. The critical point here is the absence of evidence.
The record shows that no arguments were made and no evidence presented on behalf of Jack Miller or the Second Amendment. The Justice Department attorneys were able to present their case without any opposition.
Miller had no resources to finance his argument against the government's appeal and it is doubtful that he had any interest in defending Constitutional rights. In fact, he died before the decision was rendered. His body was discovered in April of 1939, with multiple .38 caliber bullet wounds. His own .45 pistol lay by his side with four rounds expended. Perhaps he had a legitimate need for that shotgun after all.
Frank Layton must have decided that it wasn't his job to act as a constitutional test case. After the government's successful appeal, he entered a guilty plea and was placed on four years probation by the original Judge Ragon.
Today it seems bizarre that a Supreme Court case could be decided without the court hearing both sides of the argument. Yet this was the perfect opportunity for advocates of greater federal power to advance their agenda. With no opposition, they could not lose.
But the right to keep and bear arms was too deeply enshrined in American culture for the court to bury it completely as modern gun control advocates like Senator Feinstein would have us believe.
The Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice James Clark McReynolds, was notable in that it did not completely cave in to the government demands. It is a rather short document that is easily available on the web, so you need not accept another person's opinion about it. Read it yourself.
The court finding simply said that no evidence had been presented to prove that a sawed-off shotgun was a useful military weapon. Of course that was literally correct, since Miller's side never showed up in court.
After stating the court's opinion, McReynolds included passages from various historical sources to show that the militia consists of all able-bodied men who have a right, perhaps even a duty, to own firearms suitable for military service. There was little reason to include these references unless McReynolds wished to protect the Amendment from further encroachment.
The case was returned to the lower court where Miller, if living, could have made further arguments on his own behalf. He could have easily and correctly argued that short-barreled shotguns had been popular military weapons in the trenches of the First World War. It was lucky for the federal government that he was dead.
The end result was a confusing decision that is often used to support both sides of the gun rights debate. The anti-gun lobby can say that it permits reasonable regulation of firearms. Gun rights advocates can say that it supports the right to own military style weapons. With this unsatisfying legal precedent by the highest court, it is no wonder that the court system has not taken the Second Amendment seriously.
Beginning with Cases v. United States in 1942, the court system conducted a steady degradation of the Second Amendment that was often based on misinterpretations of the Miller case. Each time the Miller opinion was distorted by a lower court, the new opinion became part of case law and made it easier for the next case to further erode Second Amendment protections.
Since judges are generally members of society's elite, it is not surprising that they would be hostile to the idea of ordinary people bearing arms for personal defense or to protect against tyranny.
Law schools ignored the Second Amendment, because it was not politically correct. Students were told that it was not worthy of study, as it applied only to the obsolete right of states to form militias. The few idealistic lawyers who challenged the prevailing view quickly discovered that this was not a smart career move.
It was not until the 1990's that legal scholars began to conduct serious research into the intent of the Second Amendment. The overwhelming majority has concluded that it does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is gradually becoming more difficult for the legal establishment to ignore.
Legal experts say that sometime in the next few years the Supreme Court will end its half-century of neglect and once again rule on a Second Amendment case.
U.S. v. Miller will no doubt be mentioned countless times in the media and it will be misrepresented almost every time by self-serving politicians and biased or poorly informed journalists.
Just remember what a strange case it was.
Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws. He may be reached at rkba2000@yahoo.com.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, he got in without ever telling anyone what he really thinks.
Well what do you expect, when you go putting people in high places, based on the result of a.... poll! :rofl
-
and he is nice and young so he will be there for a very long, long, long time :)
one down and one to go .... couldn't have happened on a better watch :)
-
How about reversing the recent dipshirt "Eminent Domain" precedent. That was a BAD decision. "Medical marijuana" would be another recent BAD decision.
-
Ok... so did you see the list of people who opossed him? couldn't be a more complete list of soicialist power grabber big government nanny types... ted kennedy? kerrie? finestien and boxer? They guy has to be a gem!
Yep... Bush was good for us gun culture and second amendment types... if the supremes are gonna hear the second soon I want the deck stacked with men who know how to read the constitution... I am very optomistic.
"assualt weapon" ban expired...
Protection of commerce for the gun manufacturers
and now... A SC that might be weighted in the favor of human rights and not government rights..
lazs
-
Now if ruth bader ginsburg would just step in front of a bus the country would be set!:D
-
yep... a trully evil person of Ayn Rand novel villan proportions.
lazs
-
Nothin less than a repeal of the 1934 and 1968 gun acts would be appropriate from the political side.. and the Court stiking them down as unconstitutional would be an excellent start.
Next I'd like to see the tax collecting entities of the US Government disarmed. All of 'em. WTF is the Bureau of Weights and Measures doing armed? Who issued sidearms to the FAA? What chimp ok'ed that? WTF are all these gawdamned government clerks doing intimidating private citizens with guns?
-
damn hang... buying an SKS has sure been good for you. Never seen you so worked up over so just a cause.
lazs
-
Yer the guy responsible in my case.
I went down your reading list. A buncha that stuff I was aware of irked me before.. when I did some digging and cross checked sources I got pretty mad.
Like most other Americans I figured Waco and Ruby Ridge were just abberations... but I went and pulled the investigation transcripits.
I'm now convinced it's policy. And I was an bellybutton to ignore what's been happening every day in the Offices of the FAA, IRS, BATF and other Screw the Citizen Alphabet Soup Agencies.
Light of Day is Critical.. we gotta get these bastards under the spotlight, these screwed up laws repealed and the government back under the yoke of service to the people instead of the THEM cracking the whip on our backs.
-
ya know... that is the best thing I have ever had someone tell me on this BB.
lazs
-
Blow me, yah miserable salamander.
I kinda liked being ignorant. Was easy not being aware.. now I feel responsible. This crap came down on OUR watch. And this **** is bugging the hell outta me. I'll never be able to relax in ignorant bliss again.
Bastard.
-
Too many Americans are lazy and complacent to thwart the socialist moves of our government.
The DHS was created not by the American people's will, but they also did not oppose it.
If a reason is found and pushed, most Americans will accept it. Whether it be for the common good, the war on drugs, the war on terror, war for environmentalism, or the war on natural disasters, if it is to protect, most will welcome it with open arms because they have become so reliant on the government and given it so much control.
At this point, its too far gone. Mere votes won't reverse the effect, I haven't seen a candidate come along with the true desire to reduce the size of the government. "Neuter the government?! But then who will protect YOU?" The recent natural disasters proved it.
The snowflakes are already clumped together and have started rolling, it'll be a giant snowball before too long.
-SW
-
and it just keeps getting better... your outrage is music to my ears but.... I think I will pass on the blowjob... attractive as that offer sounds.. No offence?
lazs
-
I'll let yah owe me one. ;)