Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Obama's Supreme Court Nominee is Anti-Second Amendment

The usual gaggle of anti-gun suspects has come out of the woodwork to attack the “gun lobby” for its opposition to any action on behalf of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Coupled with their typical protestations that their attacks on Second Amendment advocates are not attacks on the Second Amendment itself, their words are laden with half-truths and selectively culled “facts.”

But the truth is simple. Second Amendment issues have come before Garland, at least four times. He voted anti-gun every time.

In 2007, Garland was one of four judges on the District of Columbia Circuit who voted for the full court to rehear a pro-gun holding of a three-judge panel overturning Washington’s draconian gun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller.

More Here

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Personally I think the pro gun lobby makes their cases to complicated. It seems more like the attorneys love to hear themselves talk than address the basic issues. Point one what does the constitution say. then state the 26 words of the second amendment. Then quote the American Jurisprudence that states the duties of judicial officers and dare them to violate their oath of office which would require resignation or impeachment and removal from the bench. American jurisprudence specifically states that a judicial officers only duty is to enforce the words that are written without bias or opinion. anything else requires them to recuse themselves or resign. This problem goes all the way back to the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803 when the supreme court ruled/wrote it had the unconstitutional authority to interpret the constitution. the framers of the constitution specifically prevented the courts from having the authority to interpret the constitution. The kings magistrates did have that authority but the framers took that authority away from all American judicial officers. This is what is causing all of the problems in todays legal system. Judges are not by definition magistrates they are only judges. there is a big difference in the definitions of those two jobs. Judges are not permitted any bias or opinion and can not interpret. this is where the farce of judicial interpretation comes from. judges have made themselves magistrates. The supreme court has been reclaiming the authority of magistrates since it was created. the authority to interpret does not exist in the constitution. Magistrates had the authority of the king, we do not have a king, therefore the authority of a magistrate can not exist. You have to understand the definition of magistrate and judge. when the constitution specifically states "Shall Not Be Infringed" those are the only words that the court can consider. It can not ignore those words, it can not change those words and it can not substitute any of those words. this fact terminates any ability to interpret.