The RATS love her. Fat chance of changing any of their minds.
Posted on 05/27/2009 7:06:32 PM PDT by neverdem
The RATS love her. Fat chance of changing any of their minds.
If the one from her circuit comes before the SC she should recuse herself and have no say in it further. I don’t look for that to happen. Agendas take precedence over correct action.
“We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”
This may be beside the point, but I’ve never understood the incorporation principle. What does the due process clause of the 14th amendment have to do with the specific enumerations of the Bill of Rights? Nothing. Due process is all about PROCESS. Free speech, gun rights, etc. are not procedural issues; they are substantive issues.
That being said, you don’t really need the incorporation principle to imagine that the protection of gun rights extends to the states. Unlike the provisions of the first amendment, the second amendment doesn’t specify that Congress should make no law, etc. All it says is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since the Constitution, in addition to enumerating the powers of the federal government, also denies certain powers to state governments, we can perhaps assume that the second amendment named the infringment of gun rights as one of the powers denied to the states. Certainly, I don’t see anything in the second amendment that says it doesn’t apply to the states.
I would say that she is a perfect match for liberals, a terrible choice for conservatives and a mixed bag as far as the libertarians are concerned at least as far as the libertarian party goes.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Too chicken to commit by signing and had absolutely nothing to base the bigoted racist decision on.
"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held,
Yep, just like Al Gor’s “settled science” and “all scientists agree” B.S.
This racist pinhead is going to be screeching to the commie MSM for decades. Perhaps she will be the poster-commie for why Americans should not vote for communist agenda “democrats” that will stick in memory for generations.
Hey, buddy, the debate - is over! /sarc
Colonel, USAFR
What if the NRA and GOA gives the Senators a call and tells them that they will be rated according to how they vote for gun grabbers?
Due Process has two parts: Substantive and Procedural. The idea is that without substance, procedure is moot. (WAY simplified, but you get the idea.)
Victor Davis Hanson: Abyssinia and Manchuria All Over Again?
Donald Rumsfeld: Threat or Menace?
Is the Abortion Debate Changing? Understanding the latest opinion poll results
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
Maybe I am jaded, maybe I just don't understand how the Bronx is so different, but I just don't get what is so compelling about her life story. At all.
Because the Liberals expect nothing from people living in the projects. Because she grabbed the affirmative action ring and got out and actually got her ticket punched, well, that’s something to a political party that expects nothing.
That sounds about as compelling as mold in a shower stall.
ping
...Can’t speak for all, but this libertarian carries a mixed bag...
bump
“Due Process has two parts: Substantive and Procedural. The idea is that without substance, procedure is moot. (WAY simplified, but you get the idea.)”
I’m familiar with the concept, and along with Robert H. Bork, I think it’s absolute B.S. As intellectually phony as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. Substance has nothing to do with process. Process is the only thing that matters; that’s why they call it “due process” instead of “due substance”.
The injection of substance into our 14th amendment protections is one of the premier avenues (along with the interstate commerce clause and the equal protection clause) through which our Constitution has been destroyed, in my opinion.
Oh, I should add I love John Hart Ely’s characterization of substantive due process as a contradiction in terms, like saying “green pastel redness”.
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.