Skip to comments.Nev. Federal Judge Nominee Withdraws Amid Impasse
Posted on 03/11/2013 7:55:43 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
A state judge from Las Vegas is abandoning her bid for a federal judgeship after she became embroiled in the national gun control debate over a 2008 comment that she didn't believe there was a constitutional right to own guns.
Clark County District Judge Elissa Cadish submitted a letter to Nevada's senators, made public Friday, saying she asked President Barack Obama to withdraw the nomination after it appeared to have reached an impasse. Her bid needed support from both Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Sen. Dean Heller to get a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Heller held firm in opposing her.
"By withdrawing my nomination, I am hopeful that there will be a speedy nomination and confirmation process for a new candidate in order to get that court up to its full complement of judges to the benefit of all citizens of Nevada," Cadish wrote in her letter.
She added that she planned to seek re-election for her district court seat in 2014, and needed to resolve the lingering federal nomination issue before she could start campaigning. The code of conduct for federal judge nominees advises them to refrain from political activity.
Cadish's candidacy hit a roadblock over her response to a 2008 questionnaire from Citizens for Responsible Government while she was running for a state judgeship.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
What a sad world we live in when the individuals know The Constitution better than the judges that decide our cases. Krisanne Hall has said something to this effect many times in her seminars on The Constitution; that the attorneys are trained on procedures and case law and very little on constitutional law so many don’t even know what’s in it unless they research it for a specific reason on a case they are working on. Seems she’s right. I guess 0 is doing research to find as many anti-gun personnel to work on his extended staff as possible.
It’s utterly inexplicable that she would be nominated. The Left would not tolerate such a comment on a implicit “right” they claim yet want to promote someone who denies an explicitly protected right.
Another one bites the dust...
There was no ‘impasse’ here. This state judge was tripped up with her own admission that she didn’t ‘believe’ in an Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the Consitution!
It was the Second Amendment, and she ‘said’ she didn’t believe in it but would “Uphold” it. Bull effing sh!t.
She was confronted with the facts of an undefendable truth and was rightly sidelined. The voters in the district where she wants to go back to being a supposedly impartial judge should take note of this.
I have a hunch that she does think that
birth control, health care, college tuition, housing, food
and cell phones are a right and that is just for the Criminal Invaders.
A JUDGE who supposedly has some knowledge of the law, probably has seen and read the constitution. Maybe even heard of the Federalist Papers in the past in oh, mane, Law School! Doesn’t believe there is a right to keep and bear arms? Not only is she not qualified to be a judge at all, she has no business being in this COUNTRY!
The people - via our elected representatives - are the only power that keeps the constitution alive. Elitists - whethere they be judges or executive branch passeres-by, hate the constitution’s unruliness.
This is why leftists who control education on all levels, have erased knowledge of the constitution from civics and history and replaced it with “social studies” - race hate and foreign tribal separation doctrines - multiculturalism.
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.