June 30, 2008

This man is far and away the most important man in America today. And the 2008 election will now decide the course of America for the next 50 years

[I'M BUMPING THIS BACK UP 'CAUSE THE DISCUSSION IS A GOOD ONE...]

The Supremes, made up of seven Republican appointees, three of which are scary-whacko never-should-have-been-confirmed nuts, one true conservative, one moderate, two moderate-liberals and two liberals, decided three landmark cases last week. And thankfully I agree with three decisions, all decided of course by 5-4 majorities.

And all three decisions naturally came down to the one centrist - Anthony Kennedy. The most powerful man in America today.

1) The right to have guns in the home for protection
2) The right to habeas corpus
3) The death penalty only for murder

If McCain is the next president, he has promised to nominate scary-whackos like Thomas, Alito and Scalia, which would throw the court massively out of balance to the far, far, far right. This alone should make McCain a non-viable candidate for America. Period. End of discussion.

It is my hope that President Obama (yes, it's a done deal) will nominate only candidates in the mode of Anthony Kennedy, or Sandra Day O'Conner. Moderates. Level-headed pro-Constitution thinkers. Not conservative nuts. Not liberal goofballs. Moderates. Like Americans in general. Centrists.

So, HP'ers seem like rational, libertarian-leaning people. Do you agree with these three major cases?

Supreme Court, long quiet, ends term with a growl


Looking back on the 69 cases the justices decided in their term, former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz said the results confirm the central role of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The court under Chief Justice John Roberts defies easy labels, although it became more conservative when Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, Cruz said.

He called it an "exquisitely balanced court with Justice Kennedy remaining at the fulcrum of most, if not all, close decisions."

Kennedy wrote the majority opinions in the Guantanamo and rape cases. Kennedy said he discerned a "national consensus" against the death penalty for rapists, but both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama criticized the decision.

Kennedy also was in the majority in the gun case.

102 comments:

Anonymous said...

The main issue is that the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench...and that is not good at all either.
5-4 rulings are not good either since it shows that these 'justices' are ruling based on their ideology and NOT on the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment case should have been a slam dunk 9-0...yet we have a 5-4 ruling.
I agree that McInsane's nomination would not be good for this country, but we're still under that illusion that we're going to have elections in November...

I am sure things will be changing here shortly.

Anonymous said...

The District of Columbia should give everyone a loaded pistol. That would be interesting to watch.

Hooray for guns!!!

-FutureShock-

Anonymous said...

Obama is a clown. An ivory tower intellectual that the world pretends to admire but in fact despises. Tiny Tim Tipping through the tulips is not what runs the world. Jimmy Carter was no different. The world is run by power. Keith, guns and gold go together. I have owned guns my whole life and only hurt beer cans filled with water. (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns). But they are there to protect my family, my dog, my life. The world will not test the resolve of McCain, but you can be sure that they do not respect the resolve of another Jimmy Carter. Obama is dangerous for America, economically and militarily. His social programs have no funding except increase taxes across the board and if you think gas is high now, pull out of the Middle East militarily and see how high it will go. Prices in Europe will seem a bargain.

Holyschlitz said...

I do agree with those three decisions. The loss of Sandra Day O'Connor from the court was a terible blow. I don't ever imagine that we will ever see centrist justices appointed anymore. They will be either far to the left or far to the right.

keith said...

Make sure you chime in - do you agree with the three decisions

1) right to guns
2) right to trial
3) cap pun only for murder

At the next confirmation hearing, I want to see the Senate ask the nominee for his/her opinion on these three cases. Only "yes, yes and yes" should be viable for confirmation

Anonymous said...

Huh? You a vote for Obama and you will LOOSE your right to own arms.

keith said...

It's funny, when Obama is president and senate is in Dem hands, the only way the Republicans will be able to block a left wing liberal is with cloture, which the Republicans stupidly and unsuccessfully tried to get rid of just a few years back

Unless the Dems get to 60 in the Senate, then all bets are off and the nation goes far left

Based on the fact that the Republican party is no longer viable, that danger lurks...

Reality said...

Keith,

I'm neutral on McCain vs. Obama. On these three cases alone, however, McCain would be a better President than Obama:

1. There is a far greater chance of conservative nominees gradually turning centrist and even left-wing than the other way around. It's simply a case of the gradual corrosive effect of being in power in DC, and hob-bobbing with the wielders of government power and realizing which side of their bread gets buttered. David Souter was a Bush (41) nominee. Kennedy was a Reagan nominee (and so was Sandra Day O'Connor). Roberts and Alito are brand new, still out to reform the government :-) Thomas is an outcast in DC. Scalia used to be a vociferous defender of individual rights (besides his usual right-wing schtick), but the latest case on herbeas corpus seems to indicate the omnipotent government has finally got to him as well, in this particular case not left-wing or right-wing per se, just plain statist. Ironicly, the tradition of trampling upon habeas corpus rights based on the theory that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" traces back to Lincoln when he suspended habeas corpus, and later ennunciated by former Justice Robert Jackson, both of whom stand in the pantheons of the "liberal" left.

2. Considering the 5-4 case on DC gun ban, and Obama's intinct on guns, I'd be concerned about his nominee to the bench.

Anonymous said...

Obama supports supreme court reversal of gun ban

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/barackobama.usa

"Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Anonymous said...

Eight ideologues and one Constitutionalist

Anonymous said...

I don't know much about the Supreme Court justices, but I read a 60 Minutes interview with Scalia, and that guy is a sociopath. His thinking is truly scary. He believes that torture is not cruel and unusual punishment if the torture was not specifically intended as punishment. So the government can torture people as long as it wasn't intended to be punishment. How did a thug like that get to be a Supreme Court justice?

Were Skrewed! said...

Centrist is the only way. We need balance in this country. Obama or McCain are too far in their corners and that will put us in the Coroners office.

America needs to be independent, following the stupid needs of a party is destructive.

McCain or Obama, its the same bannana. We are all dead anyway. The southwest if Mexico and the rest belongs to China.

Im moving to Saudi and learning Arabic!

curtstest said...

This is exactly the kind of attention that Kennedy is looking for. He'll be crushed if Obama's new nominations take away his celebrity position.

k.w. - Southern Ca. said...

Well, since we all know what adminsitration was responsible for starting this needless war (without the consent of the people)which has robbed this country of untold billions, and which one is responsible for the beautiful "ownership society" we find ourselves in now ... do you really believe we are still better of with them?


Anonymous said...
Obama is a clown. An ivory tower intellectual that the world pretends to admire but in fact despises. Tiny Tim Tipping through the tulips is not what runs the world. Jimmy Carter was no different. The world is run by power. Keith, guns and gold go together. I have owned guns my whole life and only hurt beer cans filled with water. (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns). But they are there to protect my family, my dog, my life. The world will not test the resolve of McCain, but you can be sure that they do not respect the resolve of another Jimmy Carter. Obama is dangerous for America, economically and militarily. His social programs have no funding except increase taxes across the board and if you think gas is high now, pull out of the Middle East militarily and see how high it will go. Prices in Europe will seem a bargain.

shit for brains said...

Vote obama or let more troops get klled looking for terrorists that the govt has hidded away.

Where is bin laden? You all know the govt is treating him like royalty waiting for another attack before the election.

If there is another attack soon you can bet your ass obama is toast.

Why is isreal gearing up to fight someone.Could bin laden be in isreal?How much is the govt promising isreal to do the dirty work?

Jason said...

They narrowly voted 5-4 against pulling the Bill of Rights out of its argon-gas-filled case in the National Archives and drawing a black sharpie line right through one of the Amendments, and you're looking forward to more Democratic nominees on the Court?

I hate McCain. He's a horrible candidate, and a horrible man. But after this week, I've got no choice.

I will vote, if only to vote against every Democrat I can. And I find it surprising that you would feel otherwise after so closely documenting the Democratic machine's close involvement in the housing crisis. Your candidate of choice not excepted.

bickerer said...

yes yes and yes.

fast actin tinactin said...

I still don't know what exactly the court privileges the detainee dudes get. No ones assured me yet that they all can't pull a jonny cock rin, oj simpson sham act.

So, not enough information to make a call on the first one.

veritas_faust said...

Having gone to law school (but not becoming an attorney) I've gained insight into the judicial process.

To begin with, justices seldom legislate from the bench. They interpret the law and when they do so incorrectly there are grounds for appeal. Most appeals are won at the appellate levels and hence the results go largely unnoticed by most people. This catch phrase of "judicial activism" is an attempt to dismantle the role of the courts and leave power with the executive or legislature. That is by its very nature unconstitutional.

My position on the rulings:

1) The right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated in the second amendment. This is the correct ruling.

2) The right to a trial and due process is clearly stated in the 5th and 8th amendments. Our rights extend to our enemies. That is one of the things that differentiates us from the "lower animals."
The ruling is correct.

3) Punishment should be proportional, let the punishment fit the crime. Vengeance is not a valid motivation because it is emotionally based, not logically based. While people who rape children may and likely do deserve extreme punishment it is not within the boundary of a civilized society to exact this level of retribution.

The decision is difficult but correct.

The greatest danger to this country is a judiciary that rubber stamps the decisions of the leadership. Checks and balances folks...that is the American way. Anything else is representative of the things we used to go war over.

Veritas_Faust

i've had it said...

Agrew with the gun decision; not sure about the death penalty decision; and disagree with allowing terrorists access to our civil courts (habeas corpus is for citizens, not for enemy combatants...that's just stupid and never before was this ever invoked).

We need two more conservative/libertarian justices on the court to replace Stevens and Ginsburg...those two are whacked out left wing radicals who are destroying our country: note their votes in the Kelo decision, which trashed ownership, McCain-Feingold decision, which trashed the first amendment, and the Guantanamo decision, which trashed the Constitution's separation of powers.

These left wingers have to go. Thank good they are old and sick. I am not a McCain support but if he wins and they go, I hope he appoints the folks I indicated above.

The Warren Court, and subsequent liberal justices, completely hosed this country's basis of our Federal Republic and turned it into a Centralized Nation run by a handful of jerks, miscreants, money-men, activists, lobbyists, and assholes in DC. The liberals on SCOTUS did this to us, make no mistake about it.

Anonymous said...

The only really damaging decision, of the three, was the right to a hearing for terrorists. The constitutional right of habeus corpus had only extended to U.S. citizens, now it extends to foreign terrorists. In WWII the way these terrorists could legally have been treated, under Geneva Convention guidelines by both the American and German armies, was with a firing squad. Now the terrorists get the gold-plated LA Law/Perry Mason treatment. The majority justices in this decision have now helped create a legal nightmare and mess for this country. And it will severely cripple the government's ability to fight Al Qaida-type terrorists. As Scalia said, Americans will be killed because of this decision.

i've had it said...

corrected version.

Agree with the gun decision; not sure about the death penalty decision; and disagree with the decision allowing terrorists access to our civil courts (habeas corpus is for citizens, not for enemy combatants...that's just stupid and never before was this ever invoked).

We need two more conservative/libertarian justices on the court to replace Stevens and Ginsburg...those two are whacked out left wing radicals who are destroying our country. Souter and Breyer are just as bad. Note their votes in the Kelo decision, which trashed private property ownership, the McCain-Feingold decision, which trashed the first amendment, and the Guantanamo decision, which trashed the Constitution's separation of powers.

These left wingers have to go. Thank god they are old and sick. I am not a McCain supporter but if he wins and those justices retire or die, I hope he appoints the folks I indicated above.

The Warren Court, and subsequent liberal justices - including those appointed by liberal Repubs, completely hosed this country's basis of our Federal Republic and turned it into a Centralized Nation run by a handful of jerks, miscreants, money-men, activists, lobbyists, and assholes in DC.

The liberals on SCOTUS did this to us, make no mistake about it.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

Keith, Obama will nominate extreme left-wing nuts like Stevens and Ginsburg. That is a given.

McCain, despite his trying to pretend to be a conservative to win his party's support, will nominate centrists like Kennedy and Souter. Just like you want.

Jesus, does Obama have you THAT fooled?? Those European liberal nuts are really corrupting you, man.

Quark said...

"Eight ideologues and one Constitutionalist". Exactly - one member out of nine who "gets it".

Thomas is not "scary-right"; he's the ONLY one who understands the Constitution was intended to limit the power of government.

FDR is responsible for the current mess because he used his almost four terms in office to pack the Court with big government loving collectivist morons.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

Oh and you forgot to mention that your beloved Justice Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president in modern times.

keith said...

Frank - once, just once, think outside the GOP/Dem box you're stuck in.

McCain has stated he would nominate far right wing justices to the Supreme Court. So you recommend voting for him because you think he's a liar.

Nice.

If Obama were to nominate far-left wing, then the Republicans could block it.

Also, the next president will be nominating replacements for the liberals (Stevens 88, Ginsburg 75, Breyer 70). Obama will just be switching them out, at worst. McCain would seek to replace them with right wing nuts thus changing the balance of the court

Get it?

The only way the court goes left is

1) Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito die or resign and are replaced by Obama with a liberal that is strangely not filibustered by the GOP. Chances - 1%

2) Scalia, Thomas or Alito realize they're nuts and start voting correctly. Chances - 1%

Get it?

If you're looking to maintain this balance on the court, as evidenced by these three correct 5-4 decisions anchored by Kennedy, then McCain is dangerous and Obama is safe.

I firmly believe that Obama will govern to the center, and will nominate centrists to the court. I may be proven wrong, but that is were I see him going.

It's a moot point though since you'll be dealing with President Obama and his selections in a matter of months. McCain is not a viable candidate for president.

sundry vermin said...

I fear the far left more than the far right.

The far right is just kind of befuddled, the far left is one mean unrelenting propaganda machine.

Check out huffington post if you don't know what I mean.

Democraatus said...

1) The right to have guns in the home for protection

In true paradise, there's no need for that. However, we have evil government to deal with

2) The right to habeas corpus

Why does this right have to be described as law or right? As if the Gestapo was right under their well written Nazi laws....

If a right is not written down, it does not mean you have to conform to the situation like a sheep would.

Habeas corpus is not a right that is granted by government, it is a right that cannot be discarded at the expense of revolution.

3) The death penalty only for murder

Death penalty is a waste of time if not effectuated within 5 minutes from the verdict or a waste of life if effectuated on the basis of non-100% evidence and proper trail-and-conviction.

Citycorp execs will run, and that is a shame.

Anonymous said...

The decision in the DC gun case was right, but the rationale was wrong. Since DC is not a state, the right of the Fed's to regulate may run into the individual "right" to bear arms.

But what the 2nd amendment really does is it allocates the regulatory authority for firearms away from the federal government and gives it to the states. In other words, if the state wants to define its "militia" as all adults over the age of 18 and allow them to stockpile weapons (machine guns, shoulder-fired missiles, whatever), then there isn't anything that the federal government can do about it.

The Supreme Court took the cowards way out and said that the right to bear arms is individual, but can be circumscribed more by the federal government than it would be otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Keith,

You are wrong on the oil "bubble" and you are wrong on this. We need more "scary" justices that uphold the original intent of the Constitution.

The election was lost when we ended up with the candidates we have. No sense debating which of the "Made Men" is better. They aren't going to let anyone who is not not an insider get past the primaries. What they did to JFK was messy. They won't even allow an outsider to get elected now.

got mine said...

I agree with all three, but am disturbed by some of the radical rantings on this thread.

DC Guns -- The all out ban on handguns was a bit much. Rigorous enforcement of licensing requirements which exclude felons etc. along with prohibitions on carrying a loaded weapon outside the home should do it. This will sound extreme to some of you, but living close to DC it is clear to me that DC is a special case and needs those rules to keep things from totally blowing up.

Right to Trial -- this should be a no brainer. But don't forget that this crew tried to detain a US citizen forever without formal charges by slapping "Enemy Combatant" on his cell door.

Cap Punishment -- another no brainer. Vengenful retribution never accomplished anything, and the death penalty is scary enough without increasing the pool of crimes it applies to. How would you like to be the falsely accused guy they are frying because the police withheld critical DNA evidence which would have set you free? Don't think it can't happen!

I do agree that a veto-proof majority for the Dems is a very bad thing though. With the housing bailout they again show they can't be trusted with our money. Did you consider stocking up on high capacity handgun magazines as a hedge?

bitterrenter said...

Wow. Quite the fascistfest here today.

How many of you can read? Have teeth?

Anonymous said...

I fear the far left more than the far right.

The far right is just kind of befuddled, the far left is one mean unrelenting propaganda machine.


You need to switch on Faux News and see true propaganda in all its glory.

My father grew up in a communist country before moving to Canada. When he visited me in the USA (where I live now), he happened to watch Faux News for a bit. You want to know what he said? That is reminded him of the type of news that use to spew from the communist propaganda machine. Lots of patriot politics used to skew the agenda and dumb down the sheeple.

By no means do I think the democrats or the left wing media is great either. But watching nutballs like Hannity and O'Reilly; that TRULY scares me. Huffington is nothing compared to them.

Anonymous said...

The ignorance on this page belies the commentary given on the parent page....I feel badly for you Keith, the bulk of your readers are cretins...

sundry vermin said...

Anon, 9:32

Let me guess. Romania. The most screwed up of the post communist countries.

Lost Cause said...

I fear the far left more than the far right.
[...]
Check out huffington post if you don't know what I mean.

The Far Left has been defanged long ago. The Far Right is alive and well and ushering in fascism.

Huffington Post's comments have been polluted by fascist operatives for years. You would have to be a fool to take any of those remarks seriously.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

McCain has stated he would nominate far right wing justices to the Supreme Court. So you recommend voting for him because you think he's a liar.

Yes, I do think he's a liar. You know it too. You've said it yourself.

As I've said a million times, I'm not voting for McCain, I'm voting against the extreme collectivist he is running against.

whitetower said...

Can you imagine the jive turkeys that Barack Obama would nominate to the courts?

Lost Cause said...

If the fact that the government tortured Shalid Sheikh Mohammed into a confession that conformed to the official 9/11 report expaination does nothing to convince you that the administration is responsible for the disaster, nothing will.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

I'm also curious how you've concluded that this election is a done deal. Obama has dug himself into a DEEP hole on the oil & gas price issue.

You forget that there is one and only one thing that decides every election, and that is voters' personal economic well being.

When people go to the ballot in November, they'll forget about Iraq. They'll forget about Bush. They'll forget about guns, and forget about abortion.

They're going to go to the polls pissed off at how much they're spending on gas, and will have the knowledge that Obama has taken a position that increases gas prices and increases dependence on foreign oil.

The only people who will still support Obama will be the 1% of environmentalists who are true wackjobs (Greenpeace & co), and Hollywood elite and other eccentric rich like Soros who are unaffected by gas prices.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

Thomas is not "scary-right"; he's the ONLY one who understands the Constitution was intended to limit the power of government.

If I could choose one person in this world to be the next president, it would be Clarence Thomas.

GotRocks said...

Sorry Keith, but you're way off on this one. I'm certainly no McCain fan, but the Court may be the only reason that I vote for him. Consider the following:

1) Republicans simply DO NOT block judges. They never have, even when a strong majority under Clinton, and definitely not when around 40 votes under Obama.

2) Democrats DO block judges. They have, even when just over 40 votes under Bush, and the will, FOR CERTAIN, block anyone they disagree with under McCain.

The bottom-line is that the best McCain can hope for is to get Kennedy-type judges through the Democratic Senate (at best), whereas Obama will get Hillary (or worse) judges through...he'll get ANYONE he wants through, unless they have a felony in their past...and maybe even those, who knows.

Keith, if you are concerned about the Court, you HAVE to vote for McCain (for the above reasons). If that's not your top priority, then, by all means, vote Obama...but please don't waste bandwidth complaining about the people he successfully puts on the bench...YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Anonymous said...

Clarence Thomas is Peter Principle defined

Anonymous said...

Blogger Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

If I could choose one person in this world to be the next president, it would be Clarence Thomas.

We have confirmed Frank is a nut

StephenH said...

I know that I will be voting for Barack Obama! I am sick of the NeoCons, the war in Iraq, NSA Spying, poor disaster response, underfunded schools, the manners crisis, the real estate crisis, overdependence on foreign oil, ignorance of global warming, and so many other issues. It's time for a change of administration, as well as a change of policies.

keith said...

Frank, you don't get it

Bush and Cheney have destroyed your party. You'll be out of power for 20+ years.

You're gonna be in hell. Might want to come over to Europe too.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

Thomas is not "scary-right"; he's the ONLY one who understands the Constitution was intended to limit the power of government.

The "right" isn't scary to us, but it is scary to Obama supporters.

You see, these people support collectivists like Obama because they are lazy, indifferent, and don't want to do an honest day's work.

Many people don't know how much opposition there was by Soviet citizens to the fall of communism. While they didn't have great lives under communism, they had a guaranteed job, guaranteed car, guaranteed home ... all substandard, of course, but still guaranteed, and for people who really don't want to work very hard, that's a comfort to them.

So now we have all these people in America who are lazy and the fact that we live in a free-market capitalist society scares them, simply because the thought of doing an honest days' work scares them.

So they call all of us who believe in the idea of working to earn your keep as the "scary right" and vilify us as "evil capitalists" simply because we expect them to work for a living just like we do.

As to this thread and this blog, I figure one of the following is true:

1. Keith has spent too much time in Europe and has been brainwashed by the anti-American, leftist citizens and state-controlled press over there.

2. He's doing his job as a blogger to keep traffic and keep debate up by making sensationalist statements that he doesn't really believe.

keith said...

Frank, as you know blogging is a hobby, and also, I firmly believe Clarence Thomas is a right wing nut

Hope that helps

But as always, enjoy the conversation even when we disagree

As for you living in Europe, I'd recommend Serbia. They'd kill you in most other parts.

gwk said...

Sorry to say that President Obama (maybe) will nominate only left left and far left Judges to the Court not any Kennedys. It will be decided by the Judiciary in the Senate and then watch this country really fall apart.

venetiancafe said...

This just confirms that the US is propably the most backwards place in the western hemisphere.

More murders and guns. GOD BLESS AMER'CA.

venetiancafe said...

Keith,

Another idea......
I would love to trade places with you in Europe. You can come back to PHX (Scottsdale). Your personality seems to fit the wild west much better than mine. I don't think you appreciate your being there, and that's sad for all the people who would.

What's next? The right to have atomic bombs in every house? This is has outrageous.

keith said...

Trust me VC, I appreciate every moment over here

And no, the 2nd doesn't give people the right to WMD in their homes. Just the right to self-protection

Moderation. No more left, no more right. Moderation.

Anonymous said...

Dont forget Kennedy gave Bush the election in 2000

Anonymous said...

Keith said:

"And no, the 2nd doesn't give people the right to WMD in their homes. Just the right to self-protection"

The 2nd has nothing to do with self-protection from "criminals." It's all about making sure the states have the ability to resist imposition of federal authority. So, actually, people do have a right to whatever the state government decides is necessary for its militia.

Frank said:

"You see, these people support collectivists like Obama because they are lazy, indifferent, and don't want to do an honest day's work."

Frank, aren't you always bragging about how you found a way to make millions without working very hard? Mine coal for a few years, then bitch about socialized medicine.

keith said...

I've always enjoyed the 2nd in a sick way, simply because it proved that you shouldn't F with the Constitution and if you do you better be precise.

Kind of like when they were gonna do a stupid amendment to ban desecration of the flag. Imagine how that would have to be worded to make sure that throwing away a flag pin wasn't illegal. Or a t-shirt with a flag on it. Or your newspaper.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, I say.

The 2nd is easily the worst written and sloppiest one of all time, proving that the US had monkeys screwing things up even back then. Eventually the US might need to have a new amendment that clarifies the 2nd... won't that be fun?

http://tinyurl.com/an2ny

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, 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. ”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ 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. ”

bickerer said...

venetiancafe said...

>This just confirms that the US is propably the most backwards place in the western hemisphere.
>More murders and guns. GOD BLESS AMER'CA.


venetiancafe, this is where I differ from many americanos. I WANT people like you do dislike us. Too many folks here don't care as much about being right, instead concerned with being liked.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Obama is a done deal, if you believe 4% of Americans are racist. No one will admit to a pollster face-to-face that they are racist. So all of the polls say it's not an issue. But when they're in the ballot box with no one watching, how are they going to vote? These are the same upstanding citizens that serve jury duty and put every black person on trial in jail.

Done deal for McCain. Country is too racist.

bickerer said...

>The 2nd is easily the worst written and sloppiest one of all time, proving that the US had monkeys screwing things up even back then.


I could scour the MSM for a year and not find a point so well put. That's why I'm an HPer. I've always read that they intended to be vague. But back then when folks hunted to support themselves and there was virtually no mobile police enforcement (by our standards anyhow), vagueness wouldn't have been required for compromise.

Mark said...

The right to habeas corpus

For terrorists captured on the battlefield?????

Are you insane?

deepcgi said...

And if we elect Obama, he will appoint more left-leaning, judicial legislation-building idealogues that will rob us of still OTHER constitutional rights such as our right to preservation of private property. Struck down this year by the expansion of the government's powers of eminent domain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Also, an American citizen's right to a writ of Habeus Corpus has not been in jeapordy during George W. Bush's administration. But Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus on On April 27, 1861 during the Civil War - and it was not restored until well into the Reconstruction.

Likewise, In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in that unlawful combatant saboteurs in World War II could be denied habeas corpus and tried by military commission, making a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants.

Finally, The 1950 Supreme Court case Johnson v. Eisentrager denied access to habeas corpus for nonresident aliens captured and imprisoned abroad in a US-administered foreign court - including those captured without uniform during the years of the Korean War.

And darn it all, Korea was never a direct threat to the United States was it? No habeus corpus for unlawful, un-uniformed combatants in the Civil War, World War 2 and Korea.

I thought this was all George Bush's fault? Now, you have to blame Abraham Lincoln, too.

John Stewart and Mike Malloy should not be your first choice for Professor of History or Law. Nor should Obama, Al Gore or John Kerry for that matter.

Lex Veritas said...

Obama is the academic product of affirmative action, and his JD issued as so much social welfare from Langdell Hall at Harvard should not be assumed to be an indicia of his merit or ability. He is and will always be a robin hood liberal, and has no earthly concept of the true engine of the US economy, which is leveraged enterprise in the casino of the free market. He speaks well, and given the total void of substance in the media, that is all required to inaugurate him sua-sponte. I have the same caliber education, and attended the same institution, but due to a congenital melatonin deficiency, I had to score a near perfect LSAT and upon graduation was afforded a lower rung of the ladder in the guilds. Like all those who violate this chameleon’s proletariat ethic, my work hard and investment now earn what this neo-Marxist would punish with additional taxation. Now that is the visionary leadership we all need! Lets take America into a new era of franchised economic mediocrity that rewards conformity and punishes financially successful risk taking. Meanwhile, as America, under the soon to transpire economic and social engineering inherent in Obama and the Democrat politi-think, declines to the mean of civil service like post colonial India, true meritocracy and open markets and all their unholy inequity will move to the unlikely forums of Russia and China.

Anonymous said...

Obama was a Harvard law grad, Harvard Law Review editor, and a Harvard Law con law professor....yet he got the gun ban law worng.

He will get alot more wrong IF he becomes the president!

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

Frank, aren't you always bragging about how you found a way to make millions without working very hard? Mine coal for a few years, then bitch about socialized medicine.

Yes I did, after 12 years of exceedingly hard work and sh*tty jobs. That what you "it's not my fault" liberals will never understand. It's easy to make money after years of 12 hour days and burning the midnight oil, while you were out drinking and smoking pot.

Keith, if I had to live in Europe, I'd choose Switzerland where ammo sales are subsidized by the gubmint :)

Maybe we'll catch up when I go visit my new employees in Romania :)

joe said...

Without the 2nd Amendment all the other ones are useless.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

What's really laughable is that every liberal singles out "Faux News" as being biased, but they conveniently forget that Fox is the *ONLY* network that is biased toward the right, while *EVERY* other network is even more biased toward the left.

To the guy whose father compared Fox to a commie-run press, I guess he never saw NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, or any of the others during the Clinton administration, ha?

Their bias towards the left makes Fox's toward the right look like baby sh*t.

Anonymous said...

Hey Keith, did you know obama supports the death penalty for child rape?

I know, I know, you disagree with him on a lot (most economic) issues. and probably a number of social ones too, like illegal immigration. but hey, he has something right, right? if only i could remember what it is... oh yea, he isn't mccain.

Anonymous said...

Centrist is the only way. We need balance in this country. Obama or McCain are too far in their corners and that will put us in the Coroners office.
-------------------------

oh please, mcloser is more centrist than obama! obama is wandering around in the parking behind left field.

Anonymous said...

agree with the gun decision. agree with the capital punishment decision. It is a heinous, for sure, one of the worst.

right to a trial via our constitution was a mistake. They tried to fix a problem (the military not sorting through the prisoners fast enough) but giving them rights under our constitution is wrong.

Anonymous said...

the war in Iraq, NSA Spying, poor disaster response, underfunded schools, the manners crisis, the real estate crisis,

------------------------

hmmm, i thought states were the main source of funding for schools.

Anonymous said...

Dont forget Kennedy gave Bush the election in 2000
---------------------------------

no, the dumbass democrats gave it to him by nominating that loser gore. then gave it to him again in 2004 by nominating the one loser who couldn't beat bush.

Anonymous said...

“ 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. ”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ 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. ”
----------------------------

wow, it didn't take long for the monkeys to infiltrate, did it?

keith said...

Here's a MSM article in today's post that echoes my sentiment exactly:



A Win by McCain Could Push a Split Court to Right

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/29/ST2008062900126.html

or much of its term, the Supreme Court muted last year's noisy dissents, warmed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s vision of narrow, incremental decisions and continued a slow but hardly steady move to the right.

But as justices finished their work last week, two overarching truths about the court remained unchanged: It is sharply divided ideologically on some of the most fundamental constitutional questions, and the coming presidential election will determine its future path.

A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.

Anonymous said...

Keith,

You need to get out of your lesser of 2 evils box, which has led you to support someone who supports the bailout, FISA and licenses for illegals. Step away from the kool aid.

Anonymous said...

Exactly Keith - the 2nd amendment provides American citizens with the right to self-protection and this will become paramount as the State continues to grow and impose more and more 'laws and regulations' that strip us of our liberties.

As for McInsane and Obama-sama...both are corporate-sponsored goons, just coming from different angles. If the chimp-in-chief does not attack Iran, either of these two clowns will. Nothing will have changes except the economy will definitely finish imploding and we'll be taxed into slavery.

Again...change is happening here shortly. And no, I don't mean the "O" change...

Anonymous said...

Finally, The 1950 Supreme Court case Johnson v. Eisentrager denied access to habeas corpus for nonresident aliens captured and imprisoned abroad in a US-administered foreign court - including those captured without uniform during the years of the Korean War.

Here's where I disagree. The War on Terror is too vaguely defined and indefinite to use standards that applied during previous wars. Would we apply the same standards to the War on Drugs? All we have to do is call it a war and we have unlimited power?

We are accusing these people of criminal behavior - not something usually done to your average POW.

This war also will continue indefinitely. This is not going to be won in the next few years or even decade. That was not a legitimate concern during previous wars.

Also, if we're simply treating them as enemy combantants, does that mean we would let them go if Al Qaida declared their battle is over tomorrow? (POW's are generally released at the end of wars.) Of course not. These guys are criminals and should be treated as such.

Anonymous said...

yeah we should have more centrists like Ginsburg...the ex head lawyer for the ACLU...cuz that's centrist

DOPES

Anonymous said...

I agree with the gun decision. It is guaranteed by the second amendment. Criminals will always carry guns as they have no regard for the rule of law. The vast majority of law abiding citizens should be allowed to neutralize the threat of armed criminals wherever they may be. If said criminals had to worry about getting shot themselves while committing crimes and threatening people, crime wouldn't be so rampant.

I do not agree with the cap punishment decision. Child rape is even more reprehensible than murder in my opinion and at is at the very least is on the same level of depravity. Since we cant castrate these people (since that would be "cruel and unusual") they should be put to death.

Habeas Corpus is a right the government bestows upon its own citizens, not foreign enemies of war who have no rights outside the Geneva conventions, unless of course the enemy chooses to ignore these rules in which case they forfeit those rights as well.

Anonymous said...

None of the people here who say the court got the death penalty right must be parents.

If you had a child that was brutally raped, what would you do? Give the guy a handy to finish off, or rip his head off and s**t down his neck? And would you be wrong?

Government is there to represent the governed. Judges are there to decide fact (or law). These judges are trying to write law.

1. As said before, affirming the 2nd Amendment should have been 9-0. The fact that 4 judges could find otherwise is ample proof of the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment, which was to allow the people to be able to protect themselves from tyrannical governments.

2. Extending Habeus to non-citizen, enemy combatants is giving away rights that the other side isn't giving us. It will kill Americans. Now countries who want to attack America will know that the worst they have to fear is getting caught up in a very liberal court system, which will mean better treatment in jail than home until it is time to go back on the lines and kill more Americans.

3. Death penalty-- I hope all of you feel real good about yourselves. You get to support sick bastard rapists for the rest of their lives, and give them better care than their victims, who will be victims for the rest of their lives, will ever see.

People on either side of the spectrum are part of the problem, but having a representative republic where the representatives are not representative of those being represented are even worse.

And you'll cheer like retarded little sheep when St. Barry takes us the rest of the way down.

Pathetic.

keith said...

To the few who don't understand the death penalty case, let me try to help you

1) Nobody supports child rape or rape period. That point is given. But the reason we have justices deciding law based on the Constitution is that politicians or the public would be pressured to do the wrong thing. Voting for something like this would open you up to "Senator Smith Supports Child Rape". Kind of like how restoring habeas corpus opened supporters up to "Senator Smith supports Terrorism" spin

2) In a murder case, there's (almost always) a body. In a rape case, it can many times come down to someone's word or circumstantial evidence. Having the state kill someone because of a he said / she said argument is obviously problematic

3) Having the state murder people in the first place is dubious morally. And the US is one of the few countries that still does it. But we've made an exception as a society for murder. To open up state-sponsored murder for other offenses is a very slippery slope. How about drug dealing? How about speeding?

Five justices made the hard decision, and the correct decision, with this case. Four showed that they were intellectually deficient, do not understand the Constitution, and are reckless with the law. Those four should scare you.

Anonymous said...

O.K. now I'm completely confused...

What kind of libertarian are you? The last time I checked the Libertarian Party believed in private property rights.

Go read the KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON dissenting opion. You will quickly realize that Scallia, Thomas, and Alito are the ONLY sane justices on the Supreme Court!

keith said...

The three religious nuts were right on that case and then wrong wrong wrong on a host of others

That case showed just how intellectually confused these three are. They say (rightly) that the state cannot infringe on the personal property rights of the citizen, and then they rule that the state can tell a citizen what to do in their bedroom, what to do with their bodies, who they can marry, and how they are to behave morally.

They want the state to be the moral and religious nanny at the same time they want the state out of private property matters.

In other words, they're confused.

I, on the other hand, want the state out of property AND moral and personal and religious issues. As does Ron Paul and as do most if not all libertarians.

Hope that helps.

michael said...

1) The right to have guns in the home for protection - disagree with ruling...left too much room for restrictions.

2) The right to habeas corpus - disagree with ruling. habeas corpus should not be extended to non u.s. citizen enemy combatants.

3) The death penalty only for murder - disagree with ruling. death penalty should be abolished.

devestment said...

Do you agree with these three major cases?

YES! I am pro costitution! The nut jobs scare me!

Anonymous said...

well the latest decision on the second ammentdment that was decided by the supreme court has to be examined carefully. the district of columbia is not a state. it is a special area where the federal government abides. is this ruling effective in the states as well? that is the question that will be decided soon...

keith said...

FYI - I agree, death penalty should be abolished (uh, ever hear of 'cruel and unusual punishment'). But this case was specifically about using the death penalty for a rape offense, and the court ruled correctly.

The BIGGER case is to come. And the US will be rid of the death penalty by 2015 if not sooner. And putting someone in a cage until they die is much more of a deterrent than death I'd say.

Here's the company we keep today. This should disgust you.

Most Executions carried out in 2007:

China 470+
Iran 317+
Saudi Arabia 143+
Pakistan 135+
USA 42
Iraq 33+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

Anonymous said...

Keith the problem with habeas corpus is that these are prisoners of war (at best). I can think of two previous occasions in US History of similar actions. 1) the Barbary Pirates, not a state per say, but in essence terrorists attacking our trading, they were forcefully put down. 2) the unrepentant nazis after WWII who went underground and started attacking the allies. They were found out, lined up, and shot by 7 man firing squads, Hardly habeas corpus.

Anonymous said...

You're crazy. Scalia is the man. A strict constitutionalist-libertarian. The best justice in ages.

Dino said...

None of the people here who say the court got the death penalty right must be parents.

If you had a child that was brutally raped, what would you do? Give the guy a handy to finish off, or rip his head off and s**t down his neck? And would you be wrong?


===============

Amen to that.

Deucebag said...

And by the way, it was never for self defense, but to overthrow a tyrannical government, if needed.

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

And there are 4 douchebags on the Supreme Court that cannot read plain English and whom do not know their history. In fact, they need to step down as they can no longer perform their duties to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Anonymous said...

Keith, you might have called the housing bubble, but a Constitutional Scholar, you are not.

If your version of the Constitution were true, the next step from abolishing the death penalty would be to abolish life sentences. You know, those old people really learned their lesson.

We do support rapists, if not rape. They eat better than many of our citizens, have better housing, and better medical. Don't give me the he said/she said fallacy either. This case was about child rape. If you have a kid that is capable of lying about rape, and producing physical evidence in the form of physical damage to the body, you have much bigger issues.

deepcgi said...

Anonymous 12:20. It's amazing but I actually agree with you. I think we've come the crux of the rights of combatants in war issue. And notice that it is a fight neither republicans nor democrats wish to address. That is that it should be Congress's responsibility to Declare War and thereby clearly define the enemy. Without that declaration it's all muddy and unclear.

keith said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Keith the problem with habeas corpus is that these are prisoners of war (at best)"


One more time folks, because I truly think I can help some of you who haven't thought through this issue.

Ready?

THE GOVERNMENT IS TELLING YOU THESE PEOPLE ARE 'TERRORISTS', AND THEY ARE THROWING THEM IN SECRET PRISONS OR GUANTANAMO WITH NO TRIAL AND NO RIGHT TO A LAWYER.

HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF BEING 'TERRORISTS' OR 'PRISONERS OF WAR' AS THEY SAY AND YOU SO EASILY BELIEVE, THEY COULD BE THE PIZZA DELIVERY GUY. THEY COULD BE MY F*CKING NEIGHBOR. THEY COULD BE ANYONE. GET IT? THEY COULD BE ANYONE.

Stop trusting your government people. They're lying to you. They lied to you. They are not worthy of your trust.

I'm not sure who I fear the most - our current government, or the brain-dead American people who still believe them.

Anonymous said...

>2) The right to habeas corpus -
>disagree with ruling. habeas
>corpus should not be extended to
>non u.s. citizen enemy combatants.

This line of thinking has been shared elsewhere in this thread...and its mostly a non-sequitor..."enemy combatants" as determined by who? The state? this is *exactly* why habeas should be offered. You prove the point 100%...

veritas_faust said...

Habeas Corpus: "You have the body." It seems that we forget the meaning of this little phrase.

The law guarantees that a person who has been arrested has the right to go before a judge and the authority that is holding them must prove they are just in doing so.

Just for clarity:

Terrorists and "enemy combatants" are NOT the same thing. Terrorists use fear and violence to achieve political outcomes. Criminals do the same thing for economic gain. "Enemy Combatant" is a person who fights for a group, state, cause, etc... but does not wear a recognized uniform in combat.

Since the Taliban were not recognized as a legitimate government; their soldiers were granted no protection and have been placed in this legal vacuum.

The constitution does not parse a citizen's right vs. a non-citizen's right to legal protection. All are treated equally at first face.

These people have had their rights violated. And in doing so we as American's have had OUR rights violated. We are victims of the same policies are subject to the same lack of protections.

It is common to say that "they" would not show us protection and that is likely true. But this isn't a race to the bottom to see who is less receptive to individual rights. If we are the great nation so many of us believe we are, then how we fight is as important as who we fight.

Veritas_Faust

Reality said...

Anon 4:26,

Here's the deal:

1. I am a parent;

2. I don't believe non-murderer should get death penalty. Due to the irreversible nature of death penalty, and frankly the dubious ground on which the State gets to decide who lives who dies, death penalty should be applied extremely sparingly if at all.

3. If the parent of the child shot the rapist dead before his arrest (or even while in custody), then the parent comes up for murder trial, I'd vote for aquittal if I were picked as a juror.

Some practical considerations, sidebar:

(1) Death roll inmates live for decades while their cases is being appealed, and waiting for their turn at the execution machine. If you are worried about cost, a death roll inmate is much costlier than a liver;

(2) How long do you think the guy will last after being let off the death roll, and mingled into the general prison population? He'd probably become someone's bitch, and die a horrible death much quicker than waiting for an appointment with the execution chamber.

Reality said...

Keith,

One more point just to add to your argument: sometimes wars and temporary emergencies are given special exceptions to the rules of a civlized society because wars and emergencies are temporary. Even that "temporary suspension" is morally and judicially suspect. How can an undeclared war that has lasted almost 8 years be considered "temporary"? If war-on-terror is a regular thing (just like war-on-drugs), then the regular rules apply.

Anonymous said...

You're crazy. Scalia is the man. A strict constitutionalist-libertarian. The best justice in ages.
-----
You mean the guy stated that a person growing a small amount of marijuana for personal/medical purposes (according to state law) is engaging in "interstate commerce" and thus may be controlled by the federal government?

That neither conforms to originalism, strict interpretation, or libertarian positision.

Scalia is a hypocrit.

anon916 said...

Frank at Scottsdale said: "If I could choose one person in this world to be the next president, it would be Clarence Thomas."

I hope you're not talking about the "pubic hair on my coke can" guy. This couldn't be the Long Dong Silver fan?

Man Keith, you are the ultimate optimist.. "Bush and Cheney have destroyed your party. You'll be out of power for 20+ years".

I say Obama is out of power after 4 years max if he gets elected, he will be another Jimmy Carter. The FOX/Neocon mouthpiece machine is so powerful now, the willy-nilly Dems don't have a chance. In the last forty years the Dems have had the White House for 12 years. Do the math. Just today another $162 Billion was appropriated for the war on the Middle East by the Democratic Congress. Bush thanked them. Figure it out.

brianbb said...

SC isn't supposed to LEGISLATE from the bench. why can't you understand that?

No death penalty for child rapists? Why? Because they say so? Their OPINION doesn't matter. It's what's in the law or constitution. If people don't want the death penalty for child rapists then their legislature will vote to not allow it. It's so simple.

You are supporting the SC as philosopher kings who have the right to negate any law enacted by a co-equal branch of gov't at their whim. It's not supposed to be that way.

Habeas Corpus? Did you know Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War? You support Habeas Corpus for foreign nationals picked up on the battlefield. Where in the constitution does it imply that they have rights? Did German POWs have access to civilian courts? If the House and Senate think that they (foreign nationals) are being treated unfairly they THEY are the branch of gov't to pass laws controlling such behavior. The SC has NO SAY in it.

Anonymous said...

If the death penalty were to be applied equally to child rapists and child murderers, there would be no reason for a rapist to allow his victim to live. You would have more child murders, not fewer.

A live witness who can send you to death row is a much bigger threat than a dead one.

Anonymous said...

This 5-4 vote on the 2nd Ammendment was way too close of a call. They were one vote shy of repealing the 2nd amendment!

One. Fucking. Vote.

Let's wake up and get the right people in office so we can do better next time. 5-4 is pathetic; it should have been 9-0 HANDSDOWN!

I plan on selling some of my bolt action rifles, so I can afford a good quality semi-auto rifle. Get semi-autos while they are still legal! Get reloading supplies! Get trained, and train your family members. We can't have this close of a call again!

Anonymous said...

Nine nuts equal a coconut. And to get something from a coconut, you have to break it. Get rid of it. Each state presents one candidate,and those candidates make a choice among themselves and you redo the same process at each election. If they are good, you leave them there, if they are not,each state presents other one.
No blank checks for a lifetime. While you argue for the right to have guns, you leave the FED to create bogus money that disapears in a hocus pocus game. Do you realize who will pay for that?