Quote of the Day: Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court (Or The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend)

“If the court embraced the gun lobby’s dangerous view, it would roll back background checks, obliterate even the most basic training requirements for people carrying guns in public and allow almost anyone—no matter their criminal or mental history— to own and carry a gun with no limitations. And with a closely divided Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch could cast the deciding vote in cases challenging these fundamental safety laws. While Gorsuch may lack an extensive paper trail on the Second Amendment, the cases Gorsuch has ruled on give cause for concern.” – Robyn Thomas and Adam Skaggs in Gun Lobby May Have Their Man in Neil Gorsuch [via newsweek.com]

comments

  1. avatar Mikele Deziell says:

    And??

  2. avatar Jack Crow says:

    How dare he *possibly* be in favor of a basic human and civil right?

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      I know, right? Is almost like he might actually follow the Constitution when it comes to the 2A.

  3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    “… and allow almost anyone—no matter their criminal or mental history— to own and carry a gun with no limitations.”
    [Citation needed]

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      What do you mean “citation needed”? Progressives don’t need citations … they have altruism, fantasy, and emotion!!!

      1. avatar andyNC says:

        Curtis isn’t a progressive, so he needs a citation.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      Yes. In their minds “illegal” is not the same as “prohibited” – consider their position on immigration…
      It also demonstrates their inherent bigotry, only criminals carry guns – there is no such thing as a “good guy/gal with a gun”.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      Citation provided, per your request:

      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.

      That was easy.

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      The argument is unadulterated fear mongering. It ignores that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller states that restrictions on felons and the involuntarily committed mentally ill are “presumptively lawful.” And that under current law, there are no restrictions–even in California–on people who have voluntarily admitted themselves to mental health facilities. So subjected to analysis, and in view of the admission that Gorsuch has a very thin paper trail on 2A issues, their argument comes down to no more than that the Senate should not confirm anyone proposed by a Republican president unless that person has a proven track record of anti-2A animus. This is anti-logic and insupportable argument.

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    The sky is falling! See, there’s a crack!

    Oh wait, that’s a jet contrail.

    We’re contributing to global climate change! Ban jets! Squirrel!

    1. avatar Owen says:

      Aha! But that contrail is actually mind control chemicals! /sarc

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    Just wait until RBG finally croaks. Then we’ll have a pro-gun super-majority.

    1. avatar Bosko says:

      Too bad she wanted Hillary to appoint her successor instead of Obama. A women supporting women thang.
      Now, Trump will do it. Joke’s on her.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Yeah, for the life of me I cannot imagine why Ginsburg didn’t retire under Obummer and ensure that a Progressive justice replaced her. Okay, maybe I can imagine why: Progressives figured they had the 2016 Presidential election in the bag.

        This is one example where their complete devotion to fantasy and emotion actually worked against them and in our favor.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I honestly believe RBG will never voluntarily resign her seat, purely to spite Trump.

        Since the Left will likely nominate a celebrity who no one hates, like Hanks or Oprah, RBG has 3 and a half years to keel over and vacate that seat.

        I’m just hoping Kennedy wants to resign, but I have to believe he has to be under *serious* Progressive pressure to stick it out until the next pres. election…

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          My money is still on HRC to be the candidate in 2020.

      3. avatar TFred says:

        We are learning more and more every day why the left went absolutely apoplectic at Hillary’s loss. It seems each news cycle reveals yet another crisis for them that they never thought would see the light of day.

    2. avatar TFred says:

      For those who are not aware, RBG is a total exercise freak! She’s almost 84, but she very well might stay on the court for another decade. Not kidding. We really have to keep Trump in 2020 and then Pence in 2024!

      http://www.jta.org/2017/02/28/life-religion/this-is-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-workout-spoiler-alert-its-ridiculously-hard

      1. avatar Soylent Green says:

        hateful shrews are notoriously durable.

        Is it wrong to drive over my RBG voodoo doll with my truck?

      2. avatar Herb Allen says:

        I read that JTA article about RBG’s workouts. My pal Sumpton Fishie sez it’s a stretch to believe that RBG is doing at 83 what would tire a twenty year old.

        Could explain all those pics of RBG asleep in her chair. Too pooped to pop.

      3. avatar Nanashi says:

        Pence has been too favorable of the EU abomination to get my 2024 vote.

        I think Rand will be a good candidate in 8 years, especially if he makes a name for himself ensuring we get an actual repeal of Obamacare instead of Liein Ryan’s BS.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          The RNC will continue to do to him what they have done before, and what they did to his father. He has no more chance of getting the nomination than Bernie .

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          2024 is something like 8 years away, I would not count anyone out at this stage. Center your attention on Congress.

  6. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “..and allow almost anyone”

    Except for, you know, the people who are already prevented from possession by those ‘common sense (r) ™’ laws we already have in place at the Federal level and duplicated by all fifty (seven?) states.

  7. avatar Stu in AZ says:

    I wouldn’t call background checks fundamental if our nation thrived for over 200 years without them…
    Regardless, this is fear mongering. No way the Supreme Court rolls back the Brady bill.

    1. avatar J says:

      Brady bill? Wasn’t that “rolled back” in 2004?

      1. avatar DrewR says:

        No, that was the AWB, the Brady Bill he’s referring to is the one that set up the current background check system 4473s and all that.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “No way the Supreme Court rolls back the Brady bill.”

      Especially in light of the recent “presumptively lawful” legal doctrine that something must be good to go if it existed for a “long time” without any legal challenges. (Of course “long time” being entirely arbitrary and whatever the court needs to justify their preconceived decision.)

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Piss on SCOTUS in this instance, Brady was passed by Congress, REPEAL it, and state your reason for doing so that it is clearly unconstitutional, Trump signs it and everybody is happy, particularly undertakers, selling short caskets to people whose heads exploded.

  8. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    The SC justices are meant to decide on whether cases are constitutional or not. They are not meant to be politicized or to bring their personal & political feelings to bear. The court system (all the way through, from state to federal level) has been relentlessly politicized, this is shown by the insane twisting of basic words done by these courts to make a judgement fit a narrative.

    1. avatar Bosko says:

      The two habitual liars Obama appointed are the worst justices in the history of the court,.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Worse even than Samuel Chase, who was impeached for his blatant and over-the-top partisan behavior on the bench?

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        Worse than Hugo Black, who effectively abolished the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th and 13th amendments?

    2. avatar Swilson says:

      This was one of the big factors in my “awakening”, as I like to call it. Right around the time I started college, I had never been particularly political or anything like that. However as I became more aware of our political system, one of the things that really stood out to me was legislating from the bench. I found it to be pretty corrupt in most instances and from what I’ve seen, it is almost always (I say almost to avoid extremes), liberal, Democrat judges who legislate from the bench. They seem to be simply incapable of applying laws, as they are written. It is a rotten scheme.

    3. avatar Julius Corrino says:

      Courts are primarily an instrument of power, the Supreme Court being the most important of them all. Has always been like that, will always be like that.

      This is true for all nations and ages, no matter whether it’s the Soviet Union or Denmark or India or the United States.

      Unpolitical courts are but a constitutionalist fever dream.

      The #GunRight might as well stop chasing the pink unicorn in the sky and start playing the power game in earnest. That’s how winning works. Pack SCOTUS if need be.

    4. Yeah! Who are these SCOUTS lobbyists she speaks of?
      If that’s how things get done, why have we wasted so much time on congress?

    5. avatar ORCON says:

      Wrong! Judicial review was never the role of SCotUS per US Constitution. Judicial review was granted to the court by the court in the contemptible Marbury v. Madison ruling.

  9. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    She’s kind of cute for a liberal. He’s got the usual liberal smirk. Don’t give a shit otherwise as I don’t read what liberals write.

    1. avatar Cjstl says:

      I disagree. That’s not your mother. It’s a man, baby!

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Sure. Every bit as cute as Rachel Maddow.

      1. avatar Bugman says:

        Rachel? I thought his name was Rick…

        1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          The pictured woman is not even remotely similar to Rachel Maddow. You need to look past the similarly goofy, hipster glasses.

  10. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Personally I am for tossing criminals in jail for extended periods of time. Something many Democrats seem to oppose.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Democrats fully support tossing criminals in jail for very long periods as well.

      The crux of the matter: whose definition of “criminal” are we talking about here?

      Remember, Hillary told us that something like 1/3rd of our nation are irredeemable deplorables (people who voted for Trump). I have no doubt that plenty of Democrats would call such people “criminals” and would fully support sending those “criminals” to jail (reeducation camps) for a very long time.

  11. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    What courses and training requirements did the founding fathers have?

    1. avatar Cjstl says:

      Militia musters and drills. So a lot more than we have today. Just saying…

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Required to merely own a firearm?

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          Nope. The wording of the 2nd Amendment and the militia clauses are clear. The government may require you to train under arms, but it may not debar you the right to bear arms. Therefore the arms come first, whether the government chooses to exercise its prerogative to muster and train you is up to them.

        2. avatar Cjstl says:

          True. And to add to your point, in 1792 all eligible members of the militia were actually required to keep arms.

          Militia members, referred to as “every citizen, so enrolled and notified”, “…shall within six months thereafter, provide himself…” with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

          Pretty cool. I want my musket and bayonet!

        3. avatar Cjstl says:

          However, you also proved the points for a national gun registry and mandatory training. The government may not prohibit us from keeping and bearing arms, but there is nothing there that says it may not mandate training for every firearm we own.

          I am a firm believer that 2A protects our RKBA, and every law that restricts weapon type, magazine capacity, ammunition, and so on is blatantly unconstitutional. But the rest is a slippery slope. Logical arguments can certainly be made for carry permits, registries, training requirements, etc.

          However, I would very much like to see the government force every eligible member of the militia to obtain a rifle. Wouldn’t that be some spectacular wailing and teeth-gnashing from the antis!

          AR-15’s for everyone!

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      In my opinion – the 13th Amendment (1865) supersedes the Militia Act:

      13. Abolishment of Slavery 1865
      Section 1. Neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE [emphasis mine], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      Should also apply to the Selective Service (draft).

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Except if we look back to the original interpretation of that text it is exceedingly obvious what it meant, which is not at all what you think it should mean.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          I prefer to read the actual text and interpret it for myself. As in “…shall not be infringed.” and “Involuntary servitude”.

          If someone, judicial or legislative, tells me what sort of arms I may keep or bear, and when or where I can actually bear them, my rights have been infringed.

          Similarly, if someone comes to my door and tells me I must drop everything I currently have planned for my life and serve in the military for a number of years, possibly even facing deadly peril, or go to prison for a number of years as my only alternative, I would consider that involuntary servitude. Especially since I have not been convicted of any crime beforehand.

          “The lobster in the pot may be experiencing his finest hour, but the choice wasn’t his.” Robert A. Heinlein – “The Notebooks of Lazarus Long”

  12. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I wonder if she’s had the time to look into the appalling lack of training requirements to vote in this country. Since she believes that only properly trained individuals should be allowed to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Sounds good to me?

  14. avatar H says:

    Liberals want activist judges, until they don’t.
    Gorsuch has his own beliefs. If he’s remotely human he may have some disagreements with himself. Some apparent contradictions.

    What I know about him from his writings and decisions is that he doesn’t think his personal views belong on the Bench.

    His rulings on the Hobby Lobby case show he’s a thinker. Who else but the Supremes should hold the lower courts and the people to procedure?
    We may not like every decision because it doesn’t go our way but I want Supremes who think the Constitution isn’t open to today’s popular interpretation. It is a genius document that holds us to embrace our higher selves. We can’t sleep through this class or call it in. This American government demands our participation by knowing what rights really are.

    The challenge is to uphold everyone’s rights. Not just what we want this year. If we can leave the wedge issues alone then we can get to what really affects us.
    Look at causes of death. What do the numbers say we should concentrate on?

    Across the nation no matter our party, race, gender, religion there are certain things we don’t ask the government to fix because we are distracted by magazine size or imposing our distinct religious values on others. We want clean water and good schools. Is that arguable?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      H,

      The challenge is to uphold everyone’s rights.

      The challenge is for everyone to even understand what a true “right” is in the first place. Reference people who claim a right to feel safe … and who claim such right can compel other people to give up their rights. We cannot begin to uphold everyone’s rights when so many don’t even know what a right is.

      Look at causes of death. What do the numbers say we should concentrate on?

      And a Progressive will respond that we should concentrate on whatever feels most important, not what is actually (by the numbers) most important.

      We want clean water and good schools. Is that arguable?

      Yes, because other matters are more emotionally charged and therefore take front-and-center stage over clean water and good schools.

      The real problem in our nation and every other nation on the planet:
      (1) There is no timeless and concrete standard of right and wrong. Everything just devolves into a giant shouting match and ultimately “might makes right”.
      (2) For a very large number of people, altruism, fantasy, and emotion are all that matters.

      This is the root cause of 99% of the problems in our world. Solving this problem requires fixing human nature … something which is beyond our ability. If only there were an all loving and powerful Creator which provided a fix for the human condition … oh, wait!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        It’s very clear that no such entity has showed up yet. Because the human condition sure isn’t fixed.

      2. avatar Demo Man says:

        “For a very large number of people, altruism, fantasy, and emotion are all that matters.”

        Example circa 2013: racist hick state Rep. Brandon Phelps is questioned about the danger of Duty to Inform in his “NRA backed” concealed carry bill in floor debate by Black Caucus Rep. Will Davis. Phelps answers, “it hasn’t been a problem in other states” (police executing armed citizens like Philando Castile).

        Ignorant redneck ISRA & NRA members from all-white small towns buy the lies of cowards like Phelps and traitors like Vandermyde. Four years pass.

        “This is the root cause of 99% of the problems in our world. Solving this problem requires fixing human nature … something which is beyond our ability. If only there were an all loving and powerful Creator..”

        Deep Thoughts from the white christian hypocrites in southern Illinois that used and betrayed Otis McDonald, and continue to send money to Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA so they can employ lobbyists like Todd Vandermyde.

  15. avatar Chadwick says:

    Substitute all things in that quote with “voting” and then we can have a discussion on the Bill of Rights.

  16. avatar strych9 says:

    Just call them “undocumented firearms owners” and the Leftist cities will have a Pavlovian moment and line up in droves to protect them.

  17. avatar TFred says:

    Just wow. I read the entire article linked above. Almost too many factual errors to count. Yet these people believe it. I often wonder how these people remember how to tie their shoes.

  18. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Read the article. What a bunch of crap. They say he’s to the right of Scalia on guns. I wish. I hope. I doubt.

    And here’s one I keep hearing from the left “withholding support for Gorsuch’s nomination until the Senate ensures his positions on firearms reflect the reasonable and responsible views of the judicial mainstream.” Do you know what is mainstream? Kennedy. Half the court was to his left and half to his right. Kennedy voted for the 2A in Heller and McDonald. Someone who supports those cases is “in the mainstream.” Anyone who does not is not. All of Obama’s nominees, including Garland, were outside of the mainstream. It’s a bull argument.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The function of the Supreme Court is not to adopt the”judicial mainstream” as developed in the Courts of Appeals, but instead to set the policy for all of those courts below it to follow. The Supreme Court is in no way bound by any court of appeals decision, but many follow it if persuaded. It does not take a straw poll and say, “well all of these other courts have gone this direction, we should simply vote with the majority.” What utter nonsense. Review is meaningless without independence.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    Liberals will try and paint him as an extremist on every issue, but the fact that they have to reach so far is telling, and maybe not so good for us. She admits that she’s basically making these leaps without evidence. That means we also are hoping without real evidence.

  20. avatar Matt G says:

    “And with a closely divided Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch could cast the deciding vote in cases challenging these fundamental safety laws.”

    That’s a feature not a bug…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I am still waiting for the Constitutional Amendment enacting a Right to Safety. Or worse, a Right to Feel Safe (in one’s Safe Space that excludes anyone that disagrees with you).

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    “Robyn Thomas is executive director and Adam Skaggs is litigation director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the sister organization of Americans for Responsible Solutions.”

    There’s nothing left to say, is there?

  22. What’s up to every , because I am truly eager of reading this webpage’s post to be updated
    on a regular basis. It contains pleasant material. fotbollströjor

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email