This Page

has been moved to new address

FIVE to FOUR: Appointed For LIFE

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: FIVE to FOUR: Appointed For LIFE

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Friday, June 27, 2008

FIVE to FOUR: Appointed For LIFE


In a landmark ruling Thursday, the Heller decision:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Individual Americans have a right to own guns, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday for the first time in the country's history, striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital.

However, considering the 5 to 4 ruling on this, it's truly frightening to think that four justices even would question the simple sentence in the Second Amendment that reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

One good aspect, I should truthfully write, is that the Supreme Court (at least in this case) didn't attempt to rewrite our Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama said: "I have no intention of taking of taking away peoples' guns," but supported the DC gun ban, finding it Constitutional. And Constitutional law is allegedly his scholarly specialty. Now, today, Barack Hussein Obama says today's ruling is essentially NBD.

Who formed the majority? Scalia (who wrote the decision), Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy.

Dissenting were Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Imagine that.

I'm quite disappointed that the DC Metro Police Chief Cathy Lanier disagrees with the ruling, but I make this judgment not in a closet. As a law enforcement officer I know she has to do her job. Gun violence is nasty in DC, that's a given. But taking away national rights so she can mark down her homicide board is no solution. Her jurisdiction is no different than mine. Gun violence occurs. But here's the difference: if witnesses refuse to stand up, refuse to testify, refuse to make themselves known then that's a localized problem. And in DC that's a black problem. And those communities, those people, need to lay down in the bed of their own making. OFW. Right or not, racist or not, that's simply the truth.

Further, let's continue to do what I call the Logical Extension, and that is this: in an area where there is precipitously more gun violence than most any other spot in the nation, and in consideration of the fact that violence is generally trending down in the nation according to FBI statistics, what does that tend to indicate in terms of gun ownership and protection?

I submit this: DC Police Chief Lanier isn't doing her job or, at worst, is prohibited up to now from doing her job and allowing lawful citizens to do theirs.

But trust me: the fight isn't over. Channel chatter indicates certain elements are building the arguments to go after any semi-automatic weapon, handgun or long gun.

Consensus, however, now apparently runs a good portion of the court, not legal precedent. In another ruling, SCOTUS on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote (Liberal jurists concur, Conservative Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia dissenting), the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment as published in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:
But Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

My point: SCOTUS deciding by a national trend rather than on precedent? What is this? Equaling "No Child Rapist Left Behind?"

The prior vote on Guantanamo provides greater rights to terrorists than our own soldiers. Again, 5 Liberals concur, 4 Conservatives (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito) dissent. I wrote about the decision here and here.

Oh. And SCOTUS is "off" now until October 6th.

In The Next Four Years:

The stakes in this election are simply too high. In the next presidential term, the office-holder will have the opportunity to select, at minimum, at least two and possibly three SCOTUS appointments. It is a given that whomever Barack Hussein Obama selects will sail through the Demorat-controlled Congress. What kind of persons do you think they will be?

With McCain, he has indicated an interest in appointing Strict Constructionists to SCOTUS.

In my opinion, a vote for anyone other than McCain equates to a guaranteed Barack Hussein Obama presidency. And that result, despite our hesitations and problems with McCain, is simply unacceptable. You stay home, you get Obama. You vote for anyone other than McCain, then you've thrown away your vote and you get Obama. This is precisely what Barack Hussein Obama and the Left wants.

As I have written time and again, whomever controls SCOTUS and education controls the nation and its future. Kennedy is obviously the swing vote. Breyer and Ginsburg are next to retire.

So just how important do you think control of SCOTUS is to the agenda of the Left?



Blogger TexasFred said...

The SCOTUS seems to think they gave us something today...

We now have a right to own guns?? Well, isn’t that special?!?!

It seems to me that right has been in effect ever since the 2nd amendment was written. Many anti-gun lobbies have tried their best to interpret it otherwise, and constitutional scholars have been trying to tell them that the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution was exactly what is read, word for word, because when you get right down to it, we ARE a militia if this nation comes under attack.

In 1941, when Japan attacked the U.S. Naval forces at Pearl Harbor, there was a serious reason they attacked where they did, and not on the west coast of this nation. They didn’t fear our military, they feared the ARMED U.S. citizen and the insurgency that they were certain they would face.

We, The People are the very reason that no foreign power has even tried to invade this nation, we always have been, we always will be, by God, lets keep it that way.

All I can tell you fine folks is this, if you have em, secure em, if you don’t have em, you’d be well advised to buy a few, become highly proficient in their use and invest in precious metals, brass, copper, lead, things of that nature.

You never know when they might change their minds.

Thu Jun 26, 06:02:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

BZ, there's a limit to how many times I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils, and I'm real close to it, if not there already. if republicans don't quit nominating "moderates" to appease liberals, and they don't grow a backbone REAL soon, I'm out! f--k them! if they want to court liberals, and fight the DNC for the liberal vote, and continue to IGNORE conservatives and conservative ideals SCREW 'EM!! I will go find a conservative party elsewhere, or do my part to create one. If the GOP looses this year, it's because of THEM! not because Obama is so great, the GOP busted their ass to nominate the weakest candidate they could find, (well, second weakest, I guess Ron Paul was first). If we don't throw the bums out of the GOP, we won't win elections.

Thu Jun 26, 06:14:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

check out the Carlin video I have posted here I seldom agree with this guy, but tell me he doesn't have a point.

Thu Jun 26, 06:29:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bushwack said...

Well I think if I lived in America I might be happy, but since the SCOTUS seems to be different than CALIFORNIA'S S.C. it really doesn't matter.

Our state has the toughest Gun laws in the land I think and it's holding top 5 honors for gun crimes too... odd huh?

Thu Jun 26, 08:13:00 PM PDT  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

One of the few things to note is that the Justices appointed by Republicans have not always been so good as Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts.

Stevens was appointed by Ford.

Souter was the clunker of H.W.Bush.

O'Connor also tended to shift around, and she was the downside of Reagan... luckily she has retired.

We have been very lucky so far, and have had to endure 'conservative' justices who turned 'liberal' within a few years of going on the SCOTUS. What is noticeable is that it rarely goes the other way... two out of three isn't bad, but whenever the D party puts someone in they so rarely go towards constructionalism that you have to go back decades to find them. If you are looking at the age of McCain and the age of those on the court, then Stevens at 80 or so is the one you can expect first. Ginsburg is just a tad older than McCain while Scalia and Kennedy just a shade younger.... no more than 2 years in either direction. How about 4 who could be out? Two out of three not bad? If you expect McCain to get through a term, then why not Ginsberg and Kennedy? Stevens I expect gone and that would help on its own... now if you were sure that McCain could pick someone decent Scalia might opt out. That would be two... believe me, 66% isn't so hot by then and you just could wind up with the same type of mix we have now.

Between 4-8 years I expect those four to leave. Obama would get 3 of 4, I expect.

Now, here is the question: how do these cases get UP to the SCOTUS?

Via the lower courts.

Guess what?

That has been stymied in the Senate. Now imagine that John McCain needed to get someone through a hostile Senate, which he does. Would he pick an Alito/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas type? How about a Senator? A nice 'bi-partisan' pick to go through easily and make it look like McCain can get the job done? Look at McCain's record across-the-board on federal powers via his legislation and ask yourself: what *is* his philosophy of government?

I know Obama's, which is socialism all the time, no matter what. Save when it is communism, of course.

McCain? Very few issues he has taken a stand on that has not been contradicted throughout his career. I see 'expedient' picks... 'bi-partisan' picks...

Remember, even if you agree with their outlook on government, like Reagan, he still came up a short on O'Conner.

If you want to stop these cases from getting to the SCOTUS in the first place you need a good Senate to get good justices through to the lower courts. So long as the lawyers can get lower court justices to decide in liberal ways, that will increase the amount of such cases headed to the SCOTUS.

I will vote against Obama... even if that means putting my vote to waste for a third party candidate. I despise Obama and I do not trust McCain. And if a vote for Nader is seen as pulling votes from Obama... hmmmm...

Remember, 2 out of 3 if they demonstrate they know what the role of the federal government *is*. I have a problem in that area with Sen. McCain.

No matter *who* wins, I expect there to be more than 2 parties within 8 years that are all competing for votes. America needs that now - a multi-party system.

Vote for someone I don't like or someone I distrust?

Decisions, decisions...

Fri Jun 27, 08:13:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

AJ: you know, obviously that's the Crux of the Biscuit. But my opinion is still that of: a vote for anyone other than McCain translates to an assured vote for Obama which is why, unfortunately, I perceive an Obama presidency. I don't believe, just reading comments in my blog and reading other blogs that many Conservatives simply aren't "taking it" and will be making Stand Votes -- meaning, they've had enough and they're going to make a Stand either by voting for an obscure candidate who has no chance of winning and clearly isn't on any ticket, or who has a philosophy more in keeping with their own. Or they'll just stay home in November.

That's all well and good if one wishes to Stand on principles; many people are completely fed up.

More point is just this: then expect an Obama presidency; no more, no less. And do not be surprised when this occurs.

I can't tell people what to do; I can only express my opinions -- for now -- until the Demorats under an Obama presidency first institute a Fairness Doctrine and end up terminating Talk Radio, then decide to come after bloggers on the Hate Speech level.

And do not think for any moment that those things will not occur. Under an Obama presidency and a completely rubber-stamped Demorat Congress, House AND Senate.


Fri Jun 27, 01:53:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

If you continue voting for the lesser of two evils, what are you going to get for a candidate in four years, and eight years, etc. and so on? you will continue to get the slimy weak ass semi-liberals like McCain, over, and over, and over again!

Fri Jun 27, 03:10:00 PM PDT  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Mr. Z - I do hear you there... now will he put judges on that would go against his views on legislation like McCain-Lieberman with requiring folks to register that they have been at gun shows... or McCain-Feingold and similar which have been struck down and that a decision today took down the self-finance limitations that Congress passed? You know, 'reform'?

He says 'yes' now, but in office?

Remember he hasn't had problems going against 1st and 2nd amendment rights before. Then there is ESA and land use rights and the government telling folks what to do on their own land.

Is he better than Obama? Yes.

Is he, on his own, trustworthy? To me that is no.

He believes in the John McCain view of government, which doesn't actually want to tell me about. He has 'reformed' so many times I don't know what form he is now... and he will 'reach across the aisle' more often than not, especially if the R party doesn't gain a backbone.

Just because I voted against Gore doesn't mean I voted for Bush in 2000.

This year I expect a sub-50% turnout at the polls for a reason: America is voting with its feet against the two party system. This is the year it loses its patina of legitimacy.

Fri Jun 27, 03:23:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Gayle said...

I agree with you, BZ. I don't believe we can afford four years of Obama. I also am disappointed with the direction the GOP has been going, and if I thought not voting for McCain would help anything, then I swear I wouldn't vote, but no one has yet explained to me how not voting is going to keep Obama out of the White House. Until they do so, I will vote for McCain.

Fri Jun 27, 04:38:00 PM PDT  
Blogger TexasFred said...

Mark said...
If you continue voting for the lesser of two evils, what are you going to get for a candidate in four years, and eight years, etc. and so on? you will continue to get the slimy weak ass semi-liberals like McCain, over, and over, and over again!
Amen Brother, Amen, preach it long and loud...

I can't understand the way BZ falls on this one, I can however understand Gayles view, someone has to replace Bush...

The American Conservatives better grow a set, if ya keep on rolling over and taking it, you'll just keep on rolling over and taking it...

Fri Jun 27, 06:34:00 PM PDT  
Blogger TexasFred said...

And for the umpteenth time, for the incredibly dense, no one has said DON'T VOTE, the idea is to vote your conscience and vote for a real conservative, if you have the guts to step outside the circle...

And I am seriously doubtful that very many here have that fortitude...

Fri Jun 27, 06:36:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bushwack said...

I do agree that we are settling AGAIN. I don't freakin like it one bit, and I haven't made up my mind what I'll do come November.
That is a decision I will make probably on election day at election time...

I will say this, NOTHING McCain can say between now and then is going to make me happy about OUR choice. Well Unless he picks a STRONG conservative for a VP.

Fri Jun 27, 07:07:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home