GOP Platform: A Better Way

It doesn’t have to be repealed, just reinterpreted by a judge.

Hop over to the other thread and see what just happened in Massachusetts. An attorney general decides to change law overnight all by herself. Now we would expect a judge to tell her to go fuck off and follow the law as written. What happens when he upholds the illegality of her action and there is no further legal recourse?

I don’t trust a “moderate” Obama nominee when so much is at stake.

2 Likes

Because I see these newfound voters reacting to Obama and Hillary rather than the democrats as a whole. Because Obama is the public face–the bully pulpit, as you said–of the party, not because they are likely to side with Republicans over Democrats in the majority of policy. In other words, it is sui generis.

True, but that is no reason to trust him on the subject either.

I don’t know about that. Here are two decisions that he made regarding gun control both fit the lefts narrative:

Both cases are somewhat small potato’s but on the other hand he didn’t fall on the right side did he? Also, do you honestly think Obama would pick someone unless he knew for certain that the particular Justice would fall in lock step with the lefts attack on the second amendment? No, you are not naïve.

[quote=“Aragorn, post:191, topic:219493”]
Because I see these newfound voters reacting to Obama and Hillary rather than the democrats as a whole Because Obama is the public face–the bully pulpit, as you said–of the party, not because they are likely to side with Republicans over Democrats in the majority of policy. In other words, it is sui generis…[/quote]

You are saying that they dislike Obama and Hillary so much that they are willing to reregister as republicans just to vote for Donald Trump. I see and you could be right. But I rather think they are fed up with how far the party has moved to the left. Placing the alleged danger of climate change and general earth protection over jobs. I don’t see it as being the unique situation that you claim. But time will certainly tell.

1 Like

Neither of those are substantive positions on the Second Amendment. In the one case, he wanted full panel review, but so did a conservative judge. The other case was not about the Second Amendment - it was about a federal statute and how much deference a court should give an agency to define when it destroys certain records after gun sales when the federal statute doesn’t explicitly say when to destroy them. Garland sided with the agency’s interpretation, which is normally a pretty conservative concept - he was exercising judicial restraint instead of activism.

Claiming these as examples of Garland being anti-gun rights is a reach. Hell, it’s worse than a reach.

1 Like

As I said both cases are small potato’s. But on the other hand he is an Obama pick. Do you honestly think Obama would choose someone that he was not sure would shoot the 2nd amendment in the back first chance he got?

Given Obama’s track record of mentioning gun control at every opportunity I would not trust anyone he chooses for the SC to be pro gun would you?

It doesn’t matter anyway because if Hillary wins she will get to choose at least two in four years which will tip the scale against the 2nd amendment enough for all gun control loons.

Ok, I can live with the idea that he may not be in the conservatives’ camp on the Second Amendment based on the fact that Obama is interested him. Sure.

What I despise is deliberate misinformation on his record to fire up support against him. Indeed, you engaged in the propaganda not ten posts ago. Responding to someone, you wrote:

Garland is a strong anti gun Judge, study up on him.

Well, no, that’s flat out not true, he isn’t, as you recognize in your post to me (“small potatoes”, and as I noted, these are cases that aren’t even about the Second Amendment), and maybe more importantly, it’s clear you haven’t “studied up” on him at all, even as you advise others they should.

This is the kind of nonsense that is getting conservatives in trouble across the board. Instead of just being reasonable and fact-based, too often it’s peddling propaganda.

Garland may be great on the Second Amendment on it or horrible on it, but there’s no reason to lie about it either way.

1 Like

I posted the very site which you quoted. Climb off your high horse you are getting crap all over the place.

I didn’t quote a site. You did. And you attempted to spread misinformation, which you concede is misinformation because the facts don’t support Garland as an “anti gun judge” nor have you “studied up” on him. And you got called on it. Not the first time.

In any event, the point is conservatives need to get back to persuading others (I.e., voters) by acting like sensible, thoughtful types and get away from believing and repeating everything they read on “Obummer Exposed: Judge Jeanine DESTROYS Judge Garland and the Anti-Gum Nut That He Is!!!1!!”

1 Like

Misinformation? I think not

Gee, you think Obama knew about these votes? And…do you think that’s why he chose him?

One more point that you must be wise to, do you honestly think Obama would put forth at this late stage a Judge who was blatantly anti gun, or one who has shown he is anti gun but still can pretend for political sake that he is neutral?

We both know the answer to that. He wanted to sneak one more in to tip the court before he left. The republicans wouldn’t bite and they shouldn’t have.

This is an editorial written by someone affiliated with GOA, which thinks the NRA is a bunch of liberal squishes. His arguments are the same ones you proposed earlier, and they’re just as inaccurate. It’s precisely the propaganda I’ve been talking about.

Did you even read the piece? It’s just a rehash.

Just because someone writes something in an editorial doesn’t mean what is written isn’t misinformation - without a doubt, this piece is classic misinformation in order to create an (mis)impression of Garland’s record.

1 Like

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

And yet it does not change the facts does it?

He had four chances to vote against gun rights and decided that he would take them all.

Yeah, the guy is a real 2nd amendment stalwart and member of the NRA. AND…that’s why Obama nominated him because Obama wants to put a pro gun Judge on the bench. As I said he wanted to do it in a stealth fashion.

I’m really glad it didn’t work out for him.

Judges are not supposed to rule in favor of “guns” or “vote for gun rights” when those rights are not at issue in a case - they’re supposed to rule in favor of the right interpretation of what the law means. He isn’t supposed to “fix” a statue that burdens gun owners or tip the scales in favor of “guns”. Basic civics.

You advised that Garland was a strong anti-gun judge and that we should study up on him, inferring you had. Neither turned out to be true. Busted again.

I didn’t say he is a Second Amendment stalwart - I merely pointing out that this breathless propaganda is dishonest.

It’s totally honest and true. Garland is anti gun! Every chance he had to decide (4 times) he fell on the side against guns

No more has to be said or proven.

Sure. So judicial activism is bad.

But you’re criticizing Garland for not engaging in judicial activism - you want him to legislate from the bench by taking a look at the dispute and the statute and, even when gun rights are not the issue, decide “hey, I am going to decide in a way that is pro-gun, because guns are cool.”

You really haven’t thought this through, right? Garland is strongly anti-gun, then his track record amounts to “small potatoes”, then he’s strongly anti-gun again, and you decry judicial activism, but then support judicial activism where judges inject their pro-gun biases into cases that have nothing to do with gun rights.

No wonder you’re voting for Trump. You’re as incoherent as he is.

Says the man who thinks Hillary is better for the country in the long-term.