|
|
|
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:
Law Professor Calls Possible SCOTUS Nominee "Extremist" for Beleiving Americans Have Right to Own Firearms
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A law professor described Judge Thomas Hardiman, a candidate for the impending Supreme Court nomination, as a “Second Amendment extremist” for his originalist view of the Constitution, specifically regarding the Second Amendment. Professor Adam Winkler at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law argued that if Hardiman were confirmed, the Supreme Court would be more likely to take up cases challenging current firearm laws, lending the potential for those laws to be struck down. Consequently, with Hardiman on the Supreme Court, there would be more legal gun ownership in what are now heavily regulated states like California and Connecticut.
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/9/2018)
|
The "Overton Window" is being moved! That is, the perception of what is "normal ... accepted ... middle-of-the-road" is being tugged hard left by the ....well, yes: COMMUNISTS.
We have to pull back.
Now judges who believe the Bill of Rights means what the Founders said it meant are being painted as extremists.
It's sick out there, and I think it'll get sicker if we don't cure it! |
| Comment by:
mickey
(7/9/2018)
|
| Anybody who's read the writings of Winkler knows who the extremist is. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
