TexasCHLforum.com

45ACP wrote:Damaged goods, IMO.

That is exactly what I have been saying. We would be kowtowing to Al Qaida in short order. We must not go there.

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

boomerang wrote:The last seven years has taught me RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.

Do you really think we would be better off today if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004?

Hindsight is 20/20 but yes I do.

So in hindsight, you think Gore/Kerry would have appointed 2 SCOTUS justices that would be greater adherents to the Originalist philosophy than Roberts and Alito? What is in the record of either one of them, or of Republican Senates serving under Democratic presidents (as we had in the 90's under Bill Clinton where people like Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed on routine votes) that would make you think that?

My problem with McCain on judges is that he is likely to be only marginally better than Hillary or Obama. Hillary or Obama will nominate out and out liberals while McCain is likely to nominate "conservatives" who "evolve" into either moderates or liberals. Think O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, etc. In the end the decisions by the out and out liberals and the "evolved conservatives" are not much different.

So in the end, I would just as soon have a Democrat screw up the country as have a Republican do so, which is almost certainly the case with McCain.

I have not been a Romney supporter but I have more or less settled on him by default. At least he understands how the economy works. He would not surrender in Iraq or Afganistan like Obama or to a lesser extent Hillary is likely to do. He at least has mouthed a conversion to right to life and support of the 2nd Amendment although I wouldn't expect much from him on either of those issues. On judges, who knows what he will do but it's got to be better than McCain.

I'm rapidly approaching the time in the election process where I have to keep my thoughts to myself and just work on the election. However, I'll say this much. McCain stood on the Senate floor during the debate on the Campaign Finance Reform Act and referred to his own bill as the "get the NRA bill." That speaks volumes. He has since fired the guy he claims caused him to take such a stance ( ) and, like Guiliani, said he has now seen the light and supports us. I got my gray hair the Smith Barney way, so I'm not buying it.

However, McCain can beat either Clinton or Obama and he will be better than either of those two on our issues. He will be only marginally better on other issues important to conservatives, but this isn't the forum for those discussions. Our choices are terrible, but as long as Huckabee stays in the race and pulls conservative votes away from Romney, McCain is going to get the nomination. (Not that I buy Romney's recent pro-2A conversion either.) Thompson's refusal to get serious about the nomination was a blow.

Now a warning, I have no intention of letting this thread go the way of many recent ones. If you don't like someone's direct answers to direct questions, then don't ask. As we get further into the political fight, we need to remember that we all are seeking the same goal, but we have different opinions how to get there. In-fighting just diverts energy from the fight against our true enemies. This is the place for thoughtful discussions, not arguments. No minds will be changed by saying the same things over and over, or louder and louder. Just ask any veteran husband! (That's stir 'um for sure.)

Chas.

stroo wrote:My problem with McCain on judges is that he is likely to be only marginally better than Hillary or Obama.

1) Marginally better is a lot better than marginally worse.

2) I did a brief analysis a little while back where I reviewed the judicial opinions of judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats on the 3 most significant 2A cases of our times. They were the Emerson case in the 5th Circuit, the Lockyer case in the 9th Circuit, and of course the Parker/Heller case in the DC Circuit.

I suspected I'd find a difference, but what I found shocked even me.

Looking at every opinion and or vote by every judge involved in these cases, I found that judges appointed by Republicans supported the individual rights 2A view approx. 90% of the time.

I also found that judges appointed by Democrats opposed the individual rights 2A view a full 100% of the time.

This difference is too great to be accounted for by any sort of coincidence.

The Democrats know what they are doing when they put judges on the federal bench.

Here's a link to my post if you're interested.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 91#p130491

So if you want judges who can be relied upon to heap trash on the 2A every time they get a chance to do so, without exception, and set legal precedents that will last for the next 100 years, vote for a Democrat president and tell yourself that it doesn't make any real difference.

Believe me, that's exactly what they want you to do.

And once they have wiped out the BOR, they won't care what you think or what you do.

You are looking at judges appointed by Reagan and the 2 Bushes. Frankly Reagan and the current Bush did great jobs in vetting and appointing judges. That may be the current Bush's greatest achievement. His father didn't do as well but still did pretty good. They did well because they all were committed to placing Constitutionalists on the bench. McCain isn't. His picks are likely to be alot more like Nixon and Ford's.

I don't want judge's that will trash the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. I want judges that will uphold it. Unfortunately with either McCain or the two Democrats what we will get are judges that trash the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. McCain judges will just do it on narrower grounds than Hillary or Obama judges do.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Do you really think we would be better off today if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004?

Hindsight is 20/20 but yes I do.

So in hindsight, you think

Yes. In hindsight I agree. We might be better off today if Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004.
RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.

As for your SCOTUS comment, let's talk about that. More than 75% of the current justices were appointed by Republicans.

More than 75%!!! That's an overwhelming supermajority. If your RINO theory holds water, we would expect to see an avalanche of rulings overturning socialist, big government legislation. We would expect federal gun laws to be tossed on the scrap heap by the boatload. We would expect Wickard v. Filburn to be reversed. We would expect those staunch conservatives to defend Kelo's home. Instead, the 7-2 Republican-appointed juggernaut has repeatedly ruled for socialism and big government and against the rights of American citizens.

I'll tell you what. If, after hearing Heller, SCOTUS rules the Second Amendment is an individual right and a fundamental right, I'm willing to consider the possibility there may be some difference (however small) between the justices McClinton would appoint and those Obama would appoint.

If they go a step further and admit the 2A means Americans who have no criminal record have the right possess/carry firearms in all 50 states with no license required, I will publicly apologize, change my signature quote, and promise vote for the Republican candidate in November, no matter who he may be. If they waffle and say a license may be required by a state, but states must give full faith and credit to gun licenses issued by any of the 50 states (just like drivers licenses) that won't change my decision to vote for Paul in March but I might be willing to vote RINO in November.

LULAC, La Raza, and El Opinion have all stated that McCain is the best candidate for the GOP.

I will not vote for McCain.

Anygun

boomerang wrote: Yes. In hindsight I agree. We might be better off today if Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004. RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.

As for your SCOTUS comment, let's talk about that.

First off, all of the cases and voting patterns I analyzed were District or Circuit court cases. And all I did is report the pattern I found. Republican appointees voted or wrote opinions in favor of the individual rights position on the 2A 90% of the time. Democrat appointees voted or wrote opinions against the individual rights position 100% of the time.

That is too much of a difference to ascribe to any sort of coincidence. It can only be due to fundamental differences in judicial philosophy between the justices appointed by Republicans and those appointed by Democrats.

boomerang wrote: More than 75% of the current justices were appointed by Republicans.

More than 75%!!! That's an overwhelming supermajority. If your RINO theory holds water, we would expect to see an avalanche of rulings overturning socialist, big government legislation. We would expect federal gun laws to be tossed on the scrap heap by the boatload. We would expect Wickard v. Filburn to be reversed. We would expect those staunch conservatives to defend Kelo's home. Instead, the 7-2 Republican-appointed juggernaut has repeatedly ruled for socialism and big government and against the rights of American citizens.

I wouldn't expect anything of the kind.

In the first place, we cannot neglect the firmly established principle of stare decisis. Only dedicated extremists like we had on the Warren Court of the 50's and 60's will throw long-established precedents overboard wholesale. It is more normal for changes and corrections to be made on a more incremental basis.

Secondly, it is quite obvious, in retrospect, to see that the Democrats (or more properly, the Leftists) were much quicker to see what a dedicated SCOTUS majority could accomplish in driving their agenda far beyond anything they could ever get a legislative majority to pass. The Warren Court was an eye opener for them, while the conservatives remained fast asleep for another 10 or 15 years.

So Democrats began to be a lot more careful (albeit quietly, lest the people, especially the conservatives, catch on) in selecting judges both for the lower courts as well as for the SCOTUS. That's why Carter and Clinton appointees can be seen to act much more in lockstep with each other than those of Republican presidents tend to do.

boomerang wrote: I'll tell you what. If, after hearing Heller, SCOTUS rules the Second Amendment is an individual right and a fundamental right, I'm willing to consider the possibility there may be some difference (however small) between the justices McClinton would appoint and those Obama would appoint.

I think it is almost certain they will rule it to be an individual right. Whether it makes it all the way to strict scrutiny is problematic, though I am encouraged by the Respondents' Brief.

But if/when they rule it an individual right, I am expecting it to be 5-4, with ZERO Democrat appointees in the majority.

(I'll admit there's a slight chance that Ginsberg might join the majority, but it's very slim, IMO.)

If the ruling also mandates strict scrutiny, I think there's no chance whatsoever that any Democrat appointee will be on board.

And I also think there is no chance whatsoever that any Democrat appointee to the SCOTUS would rule in our favor in any future case. They might follow binding precedent at the lower court level if they have to, but that's as far as it goes.

Look at how (Democrat-appointed) Judge Weinstein is keeping that junk lawsuit alive in NY against the clear language and intent of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.

Democrat appointees will stop at nothing to push their agenda.

boomerang wrote: If they go a step further and admit the 2A means Americans who have no criminal record have the right possess/carry firearms in all 50 states with no license required, I will publicly apologize, change my signature quote, and promise vote for the Republican candidate in November, no matter who he may be.

Not at issue so it's not gonna happen with the Heller case. And I would strongly doubt if it would happen in any future case. IMO, a "shall issue" license requirement would have no trouble passing a strict scrutiny standard.

boomerang wrote: If they waffle and say a license may be required by a state, but states must give full faith and credit to gun licenses issued by any of the 50 states (just like drivers licenses) that won't change my decision to vote for Paul in March but I might be willing to vote RINO in November.

Not in Heller, but something like this could be realized down the road as further case law is developed.

But just remember that there's no way that any Democrat-appointed judges at either the circuit or SCOTUS levels would ever allow that case law to be developed if there was anything they could possibly do to stop it.

Promises. Promises. We've had a Republican as POTUS for 19 of the past 27 years. More than 75% of the current SCOTUS Justices were appointed by Republicans. What did we get on the Federal level? Repeal of GCA 68? Repeal of NFA 34? Repeal of the 1986 ban? Repeal of GHWB's gun ban? Nationwide concealed carry for CHLs? Nationwide concealed carry for all citizens?

Seriously. What did we get? Other than taken for granted?

If Paul gets the nomination, I'll vote Republican for President. I'll they nominate McClinton, they better pass nationwide "full faith and credit" reciprocity or something equally big in the next few months to prove there's a meaningful difference between them and the Democrats. Otherwise I'm voting for Obama or a third party candidate in November.

No more RINOs!

I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There have been substantial gains at the state and local level in many areas and those men and women earned my support. The RNC has not.

Bottom line is if it's between McCain or Hillary/Obama (pick one) I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Is it better to be pragmatic or principled? Does an unwillingness to vote for the lesser of two evils ensure the greater wins?

SC1903A3 wrote:Bottom line is if it's between McCain or Hillary/Obama (pick one) I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.

SOn of ANygun #2 and I were discussing this last night.

Right now there are three front running left wingers, two dems, one gop.

McCain needs to start toeing the line and differentiate himself between Hillary/Obama between now and November. Big time. His handlers need to break out the cattle prod.

Anygun

SC1903A3 wrote:Bottom line is if it's between McCain or Hillary/Obama (pick one) I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.

That would probably be wise.

If anyone is looking for reasons to vote for the presumptive republican nominee, I'll give you at least six. They're all over 70 and they sit on the Supreme Court. Can anyone really imagine six more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs being confirmed by a Democratic Congress? Better stack it deep.

They way I see it is that instead of saying I am voting for McCain, I tell myself and everyone else that I am voting against the Dems. The chance for several justices being appointed by either Hillary or Obama is just to much for me to handle. I don't trust McCain, I thing he is a dem in Republican clothes. I just try to look at the long term on the court. There is not a conservative to vote for that will be in the Nov election. Lesser of evils!
Jim