Trumps Short List who will be best for 2A?

[middlefinger]

So...what you're all saying is...regardless of who get the seat...hundreds of thousands of heads are going to explode.

.
theres a reason for that

many progressive ideas are not popular to anyone but the extremeist left.

when they can't win at the ballot box they shop for activist leftist appointed judges to force their agenda on those that do not agree

1 in every 8 appellate court judges now have been appointed by Trump and he still has about 150 open spots to fill

the leftards are doing everything they can to block them, because if they don't their agenda to destroy what this country and the constitution stands for is done

when they label constitutionalist judges "extremists" , it's all pretty obvious

[kimtyson]

Any of those four, or any on Trump's list, will be way better than anything HRC would have nominated. We won a while back when Trump was elected. In any case, the Dems will not have the power to block whoever our President nominates. It's a good time to be a Republican.
PS- He'll probably have another crack at this before he leaves office (God willing). C'mon grim reaper!

[internet troll]

This right here from Trumps Friday address is why many of us voted for him in the first place. This is why NeverTrumpers are hurting the cause of the 2nd and in my Opinion America. The Constitution is the guiding document of America, not a piece of paper to followed when convenient and ignored when it’s not convenient.

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...on-as-written/

In choosing Justice Kennedy’s replacement, my greatest responsibility is to select a justice who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written. Judges are not supposed to re-write the law, re-invent the Constitution, or substitute their own opinions for the will of the people expressed through their laws. We reject judicial activism and policymaking from the bench. The faithful application of the Constitution is the bedrock of our freedom, the foundation of our society, and the linchpin of our government. The American system tasks Congress with writing the laws, the executive with enforcing the laws, and the judiciary with issuing neutral judgments based upon those laws and the Constitution we have sworn to protect.

In choosing a new justice, I will select someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.

[gghbi]

This right here from Trumps Friday address is why many of us voted for him in the first place. This is why NeverTrumpers are hurting the cause of the 2nd and in my Opinion America. The Constitution is the guiding document of America, not a piece of paper to followed when convenient and ignored when it’s not convenient.

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...on-as-written/

In choosing Justice Kennedy’s replacement, my greatest responsibility is to select a justice who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written. Judges are not supposed to re-write the law, re-invent the Constitution, or substitute their own opinions for the will of the people expressed through their laws. We reject judicial activism and policymaking from the bench. The faithful application of the Constitution is the bedrock of our freedom, the foundation of our society, and the linchpin of our government. The American system tasks Congress with writing the laws, the executive with enforcing the laws, and the judiciary with issuing neutral judgments based upon those laws and the Constitution we have sworn to protect.

In choosing a new justice, I will select someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.

What he said.jpg

[Xringshooter]

So...what you're all saying is...regardless of who get the seat...hundreds of thousands of heads are going to explode.

I HOPE SO!!!

What I am reading is that any of the three will be good for interpreting the constitution CORRECTLY, not parsing words to try to get a different meaning of "...shall not be infringed"

[middlefinger]

.

When they lose, Democrats just want to change the rules



As liberal fury over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement continues to escalate, there's a clear mindset behind the Left's opposition tactics: "If we stop winning, we want to immediately change the rules."

In the week after Kennedy’s retirement was announced, some Democrats have revived their calls to “court pack”— increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court and fill those seats with justices sympathetic to their social agenda.

This is something they also called for during the confirmation hearings for Justice Neil Gorsuch.

One Newsweek headline put it boldly and bluntly: “How Democrats can make Republicans pay for Justice Gorsuch.”

We’ve seen this tactic before at times when liberals have lost. Immediately after the 2016 presidential election, liberals called for a popular vote victory rather than one based on the Electoral College.

They aren’t even trying to hide that their agenda is simply focused on stopping conservatives rather than playing fairly and genuinely arguing policy.

Fair play recognizes both sides are constitutionally required to adhere to the same rules and stay within the margins of the Constitution. The Democrats’ rhetoric is a classic tactic to continue to move the goal posts and basically gerrymander favorability for one side.

What I find most incredulous about liberals’ argument is how they feign disgust at conservative originalist justices for “literal interpretation” but then their very own plan recognizes they have to interpret the Constitution literally and textually to achieve their results.

In other words, they are actually using the very text of the Constitution to recognize it gives Congress power to set the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and it further gives power to the president to nominate a new justice and confirm with advice and consent of the Senate.

So why the outrage when conservatives are poised to have a majority on the Supreme Court? That’s actually a good thing for everyone.

In the framework of the Supreme Court, conservatism acknowledges the only power the Constitution grants to the judiciary is the power to fairly and impartially apply the law. No side should be favored and certainly no policy preferences should be legislated from the bench.

And Democrats know this, they just admit it only when they want to and then deny it when they don’t like the rules.

So when it works in their favor, liberals read the Constitution as plainly giving a particular power to a government branch or agent. When it doesn’t work to advance their agenda, they claim the Constitution is “fluid” and “outdated” or that all kinds of stuff “emanates from the vast penumbra.”

Textual interpretation isn’t some magical divination that originalists use to advance a particular policy preference.

No attorney worth his or her bar license would, for example, object in court to a judge interpreting the terms of a custody arrangement that says “father has children Christmas 2018” to mean that a dad gets to have his kids on December 25.

That’s plain in the textual terms of the legal document. Similarly, the Constitution plainly gives specific, limited powers to the federal government.

And the most ironic part of Democrats’ idea to court pack?

Republicans could accomplish this right now if they wanted to, with the majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican president.

So why aren’t we hearing this idea from the GOP? Perhaps because true conservatives are genuinely willing to respect and uphold the Constitution and rule of law.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ange-the-rules

[eagleclaw]

I ran some Internet searches on these candidates and here is what I found;

Amy Barrett – nothing is officially known about her 2nd amendment stance. No history of rulings on a second amendment case.

Brett Kavanaugh – This link says he has a strong view of the second amendment

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/06/s...vanaugh-on-gun

Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel upheld the District of Columbia's ban on so-called assault weapons and its requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's use of "intermediate scrutiny," saying an analysis "based on text, history, and tradition" is more consistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.

Raymond Kethledge split decision here. The first link praises his strong second amendment stance . The second indicates he’s an anti- gun bum.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...ond-amendment/

Likewise, in moderating a Federalist Society panel on the Second Amendment, Kethledge suggested — as Justice Thomas has recently — “that the lower courts have not been faithfully applying Heller, as to methodology and also as to sort of the rigor of their scrutiny.” And in response to the misconception that the Second Amendment applies only to muskets and bayonets, he explained that, today, the Second Amendment protects modern weaponry just like “the First Amendment protects the Internet.”

http://www.pseagles.com/Raymond_Kethledge

Judge Kethledge is not pro-Second Amendment either. He refused to join a concurring opinion by conservative Judge Danny Boggs that sought to strengthen the Second Amendment by establishing a "strict scrutiny" standard of review for laws that infringe on it. Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 837 F.3d 678, 702 (6th Cir. 2016) (Boggs, J., concurring). In February Justice Clarence Thomas complained about judges failing to use strict scrutiny, as Kethledge failed to do in 2016.

Tom Hardiman Appears to be the best choice for gun rights according to this link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.ae536688f1f7

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.

Right now the second amendment is in the back seat. The main issue is abortion /Roe vs Wade. Keep in mind that we are beyond DC vs Heller. The next second amendment challenges are going to be revolving around semi auto bans (A.K.A. assault weapons bans), Magazine limitations, mental health generated gun prohibiting laws, bumps stock bans and so on. We need someone with a strong second amendment stance or will we end up with a “swing vote” that will swing in the wrong direction when deciding the aforementioned issues.

[Walleye Hunter]

Roe vs Wade was decided in what, 1964? I see no reason to revisit it.

[eagleclaw]

Roe vs Wade was decided in what, 1964? I see no reason to revisit it.

I agree, but that is the main issue that both sides appear to be watching with Trump's pick. If the court turned liberal I wouldn't want them revisiting DC vs Heller either.

[Coops]

Sen Orrin Hatch used the "her" pronoun. Slip or ploy?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ourt-pick.html