
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Senate's supreme decision
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Accordingly, if Ms. Clinton becomes president, Senate Republicans should give her a list of acceptable nominees — not limited to conservatives; that inappropriately would be dictating to the president — in the mold of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Sometimes he votes with the four conservative justices, sometimes with the liberals. Providing a list of acceptable centrist nominees would not only be legitimate, but wholly consistent with the constitutional prescription that "consent" be predicated upon the phrase "by and with the Advice" of the Senate. |
Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/4/2016)
|
All, that's ALL middle of the road supreme court nominees later voted anti-freedom and departed from constitution intents. Even some of the constitution professing nominees became anti-bill of rights justices once in office. Can we realize a Trojan Horse attempt here? |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|