My testosterone level shot up a hundred whatevers when I heard the news. This issue left the world of common sense 30 years ago. And is there any group more powerful than the gun lobby? Cheney is jealous.

In truth there are no liberals on the Supreme Court. There hasn’t been since Thurgood Marshall retired. Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer are centrists–they merely seem liberal because Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are so far to the right.

A Roberts for every seat!

Indeed.

And the two “liberals” were appointed by the far-left Clinton.

Future conflict lies where state laws and city ordinances conflict with Federal law. So the NRA will always have more work to do. GunWingnuts must unite against States rights.

Medical Marijuana – legal in California, illegal at the federal level. States rights are ok if you are a pot smoking wingnut.

OK. I’ll ask the obvious question. Why shouldn’t handguns by illegal? Handguns in the hands of civilians serve one purpose – to facilitate the killing of human beings. Period.

I admire Ginsburg. For an R, Souter turned out better than expected.

7 appointed by R’s and they still can’t overturn Roe? That says a lot.

Terrorist.

:)

OMG…Only the Pukes could make this shizzola up…this is too funny:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/…..amendment/

707!!

FDL’s Attackerman has the scoop too…

Biggest mistakes of the Bush Era:

Bush v. Gore
Impeachment is off the table

Newt sooner or later even the 30%ers will figure out that by electing GOP Presidents since Reagan in the 1980’s with the Clinton years as an 8 year exception well what has the GOP got to show for it?
Abortion is still legal although the red states are doing their best to restrict it not the Supreme Court.
Gays are now getting married but who knows maybe if we get another GOP judge on the court Gays will be able to serve in the army even if they do tell or are asked.
Newt will try and blame the Liberal Judges for all of this but as BT points out 7 of the 9 judges are GOP picks sure the GOP judges are great at probusiness anti worker law but not so much at GOP type social change.
The 30%ers will figure out that helping big business and keeping workers down is the first priority for which a GOP judge is picked. Almost 20 years of real world experience shows that the 30%ers priorities for Supreme Court Judges are at best an after thought.
Newt is all theory with facts pulled out of his ass impervious to real world facts and experience despite his hate of elite types Newt is the perfect example of whats wrong with think tanks and the Ivory tower, no experience out in the field.
There was a guy who wrote an engineering program that could estimate how much a steel beam would bend under the load of a quarter placed on the middle of the beam in different building structures. This guy went out in the field all the time with my dad walked steel, climbed power plant chimneys, just to see how his ideas worked in the real world.
Then he would adjust his ideas to the facts!
If we want to be better than the GOP we can NEVER FORGET THIS!

Big Signs! Interview!

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..zeros.html

Guns don’t kill people, gun owners do.

707, indeed! Though in a way it makes sense, since the only rational basis of “gay marriage is a threat to marriage” is that closeted married guys wouldn’t be able to maintain the fiction if the possibility existed to marry another man. That is, it’s not a threat to the institution of marriage, it’s a threat to their marriages.

I was just going to post that link … irony overload !

They all belong in an Institution …

Not a problem make it legal and tax it. The GOP might be anti tax but thats an election ploy they know we need money to pay for Bush’s war and sin taxes are very easy to sell to voters. I personally can’t see another way to pay for this war that would cause well economic hardship but I am open to ideas.

Anyone have any picks for the Supreme Court?

Larry, Moe & Curly – more entertaining and less prone to violence than Roberts & Friends.

Long live Freewayblogger!

Here’s hoping the MM lobby becomes as big as Big Tobacky!

In truth there are no liberals on the Supreme Court. There hasn’t been since Thurgood Marshall retired. Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer are centrists–they merely seem liberal because Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are so far to the right.

I agree with your assessment. This brings up the question of what kind of judges Obama would nominate. Many here have given this as a primary reason to stick with him no matter what. But for such a critical issue to us, Obama has said almost nothing on it. Would he nominate an out and out liberal to balance any of the Fascist Four? I don’t know. He hasn’t said.

Hey Scarlet.

Gotta love that pic of Mrs. Vitter with her eyes closed. Says it all.

Don’t forget that all this is soooo ####### the kids! except for Chelsea Clinton. they didn’t seem to think about her feelings during the Monica thing.

He shouldn’t have to say that he will, until after 01/20/09 …

Ah- Men

Oh my computer is censoring me again. If you see ####### in my comment it’s because I said h.a.r.d o.n. my bad.

:]

He shouldn’t have to say that he will, until after 01/20/09 …

Then this probably shouldn’t be used as a reason to vote for him.

Biggest mistakes of the Bush Era:

Bush v. Gore
Impeachment is off the table

I can think of a few more. *g*

Obama voted against Roberts. He deserves some credit for that.

LOL !!!

I’d be very surprised if the Dems aren’t using your list to plot their campaign strategies across America.

I assume that this amendment will have provisions in it given who is sponsoring it that force women to forgive their husbands rather than divorce them if they sleep with whores or guys outside of the Marriage. This shouldn’t be called a marriage bill it should be called a get out of jail card for cheating husbands bill.
Also isn’t the Gov of Vitters home state saying sex offenders should be chemically castrated Maybe a state Dem should bring up a bill to make adultery illegal and run ads with Vitters picture as number one on the chemical castration list if an anti adultery bill becomes law.
After all nobody cares about laws until it might effect them threaten to criminalize adultery and we got a “Modest Proposal ” scenario going

We need to ask Obama if he will appoint Supreme Court Judges who share his views on FISA.

Tweety:

I think this gun thing’s going to help McCain.

I’m glad there are no NASA launches today.
That new heading in DSM-IV just keeps on writing itself.

hi egregious! pretty big signs, eh? I love doing that.

Looks as if there is about to be a head on collision as Obama and McBush make their swerves to the middle—-ooooo—don’t watch!

Somebody needs to take this *sshat to task…Scalia blames Gore for Bush vs Gore…saying that Bush vs Gore was brought by Gore.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0626.html

*wiping up coffee from keyboard*

You have to be kidding. More of that “til death do us part”; abusers love that vow, because they mean it.

I happen to think that people should be able to own guns for hunting and/or personal defense….but this court acted strictly politically in finding a right to hunting in the constitution…had it been a liberal court decision, it would have been called legislating from the bench…total bullshit and they know it.

Scalia had to find a way to say that the second amendment guaranteed the right to own guns without making it legal to own machine guns, bazookas, etc—they are all “arms”- so he invented a reason for the second amendment–HUNTING—total and complete bullshit.

I’m so confused. The wingnuts are going, um, nuts because the court decided in favor of individual gun ownership. But I thought that’s what they wanted: “a gun in every bedside table.”

For protection , of course.

But wait, didn’t the Court just interpret the Constitution? Where in the 2nd Amendment is the part about militias and individuals? So, I guess SCOTUS really is a bunch of activist, liberal judges.

But wait…!

Roberts: appointed by a Republican
Scalia: appointed by a Republican
Alito: appointed by a Republican
Thomas: appointed by a Republican
Stevens: appointed by a Republican
Kennedy: appointed by a Republican
Souter: appointed by a Republican
Ginsburg: appointed by a libtard
Breyer: appointed by a Marxist-Leninist

Shit…I need to start drinking liberally. Maybe a mojito will help me make sense of it all.

I think we remove all the yes votes on Bush vs Gore from the court somehow. After all any legal ruling that you say cannot be used as a precedent for any future cases is illegal thats a given. I wonder if the English Courts upon whom we base are own have ever pulled a trick like that?
If not then lets axe the majority on Bush vs Gore

with 95% of their campaign contributions since 1980 going to the republics -
no one could have anticipated . . . h/t Cliff Schecter

as a mother who has raised 5 kids to “never say hate when you mean dislike” I really hate the NRALaPierre

This was my entry for Heller:

364. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia et al v. Heller ruled in the majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia that the 2nd Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
The 2nd Amendment 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.

Scalia dismissed the first part of the Amendment: “The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.” This is poppycock. As an “originalist,” Scalia knows that the Founders did not include reference to a “militia” on a whim. The holding of arms by citizens was meant as a check, not of those citizens, but of the states in which they lived against an oppressive federal government or social insurrection, hence the use of “militia” in the text. This question was resolved nearly 150 years ago in something called the Civil War. Now the Founders, if they had wished to recognize an individual right to possess weapons, could easily have done so, but they did not. It is only by reading out the first part of the amendment or misreading it, both of which Scalia does, that he arrives at his conclusion.

Scalia does not end there. He can not. Having done away with the restriction contained in the amendment’s initial phrase, he is left with a now unfettered, absolute freedom in its second. So if your neighbor kept a nuke in his or her backyard, or, worse from Justice Scalia’s point of view, it was one of his neighbors, you and he would have no recourse. This makes even him uncomfortable and he immediately backtracks.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Justice Scalia is a lucky man that not only does he know what Founders meant but that they always agree with him –even when history and a plain reading of the text would suggest the opposite. What Scalia along with the other conservative justices has done here is simply to substitute a Second Amendment that they would like to see in the Constitution for the one that is actually there. It is a radical, even “activist”, thing they have done. Roberts and Alito, in particular, swore up and down at their confirmation hearings their adherence to the principle of stare decisis (respect for precedent). Their vote in this case, if further evidence were needed, shows they lied.

What is important too to remember is that even if there were no Second Amendment, this would not mean that guns and other weapons would be automatically banned. It would just mean that there could be restrictions on their use and ownership, much as there are for cars, tobacco, and alcohol. The question, as in this case, is where to draw those lines, and for that you do not need a Supreme Court intervening with its creative writing approach to the Constitution.

Yeah thanks Mr. Va Fanculo.

The second amendment is to guarantee that we have a way to put government back in it’s place when it does what is doing now.

lol

The fact that Gore won the national popular vote (and Florida’s electoral votes) I guess that would make it his fault that he was, rightfully, seeking redress from the court. Isn’t that his right as a U.S. citizen?

Why, exactly, is that asshat on the court?

Obama voted against Roberts. He deserves some credit for that.

Yes, but the vote was 78-22. 22 Democrats plus the Independent Jeffords voted for Roberts. 22 Democrats voted against. Here is a list of those who voted for Roberts.

Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
*Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00245

I should point out that since the vote was so lopsided. Obama’s vote was cosmetic. The votes of those who voted for Roberts and with the Republicans are another matter.

Jane’s upstairs hanging with John Dean.

Is this perjury during confirmation hearings? Let’s prosecute.

Deep in EPU’land. It took a bit to find some sources.

Leahy has expressed regret that Roberts was ever nominated.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…../5219.html

It was actually Ole Snarlin’ Arlen who threatened to review Roberts’ and Alito’s testimony.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…../5099.html

But it being Leahy and Specter they, of course, never actually did anything.

“Lieberman (D-CT)”

Um. Shouldn’t it be X-CT or 0-CT or something?

This was in 2005 before the Democratic Party left him.

The Heller decision does the DEMs no favors. Especially as it was decided 5-4. One vote away from making it constitutional to ban the possession of a personal firearm device in ones own home.

The DEMs are weak on gun-owners rights, and weak on protecting the 2nd amendment.

That some Republicans are weak in this area does not make the DEMs strong.

Just sayin’, it’s an issue – and if I was a DEM, I wouldn’t be pointing to Heller and saying “See, we respect the 2nd amendment too.”

That’s seven Republican-appointed judges, nine Republican-named judges.

Never forget, in his memoir Orrin Hatch bragged that Clinton came to him and asked for a short list of judges that would be acceptable to the Republican Senate. Hatch recommended Breyer and Ginsburg.

And the rest is history.