Thomas Hardimann for the Supreme Court...YES!

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,203
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#1
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’





Judge Thomas Hardiman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, shown in Washington in 2016. (Cliff Owen/AP)
By Emma BrownJuly 6 at 11:35 AMEmail the author
In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.
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.
Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.
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.
“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”
Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.
Hardiman, 52, joined the federal bench after being nominated by George W. Bush in 2003. Three years later, he was confirmed to the appeals court. In 2017, he was one of two finalists to fill the seat that had belonged to Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump ultimately chose Neil M. Gorsuch.
But now Hardiman — who, according to Politico, has been endorsed by his colleague on the 3rd Circuit — and the president’s sister — Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, is said to again be among a handful of judges who have made Trump’s shortlist, a possibility that has alarmed gun-control advocates.
Since the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision striking down a D.C. handgun ban in 2008, and then extended that decision to the states in 2010, the justices have been largely silent on the gun debate, refusing to take up a slew of challenges to firearm restrictions from across the country.
Many court watchers believe that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s presence on the court had something to do with that silence and that an avowed Second Amendment defender such as Hardiman — or Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who has also expressed an expansive view of gun rights and is reportedly among Trump’s top picks for the job — could have a profound effect on the court’s handling of gun-related cases.
Two other judges among Trump’s reported top picks to replace the retiring Kennedy — Amy Coney Barrett and Raymond Kethledge — have thinner records on the Second Amendment, making their positions more difficult to analyze. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, writing in The Washington Post, called Kethledge “exemplary” on gun rights, citing his concurrence with an opinion that described the right to bear arms as “fundamental.”
For the Supreme Court to hear a case, four justices must vote in favor of review. Two — Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — have made clear that they believe the high court should take up more Second Amendment cases. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the court’s opinion applying the Second Amendment to state and local laws. Experts say that Hardiman would almost certainly join those protective of gun rights, making it more likely there could be four votes to hear related cases.
Experts also believe that Kennedy may have moderated the Supreme Court’s key decision on guns, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court struck down the District’s ban on handguns. Scalia, writing for the majority, wrote that Americans have a right to have guns at home and for self-defense but also that “long-standing” gun regulations, such as those prohibiting felons from owning guns, are constitutional.
Sanford Levinson, a constitutional-law professor at the University of Texas, said that while it is impossible to know for sure, he and court watchers from across the political spectrum believe that Scalia included explicit approval of some gun regulation in the opinion to persuade Kennedy, the perennial swing voter, to join the opinion.
Kennedy ultimately did, giving the conservatives a 5-to-4 majority in the case.
While others on Trump’s shortlist probably also have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, Hardiman has had the opportunity to express his in two key opinions over the past seven years.
In 2013, Hardiman was part of a three-judge appeals panel deciding the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required citizens seeking a handgun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for such a weapon. The state defined “justifiable need” as an urgent need for self-protection because of “specific threats or recent attacks.”
Two judges voted to uphold the New Jersey law, finding it a constitutional way for the state to advance its goal of protecting public safety. Hardiman dissented, arguing that the law should be struck down.
Central to their disagreement was the Heller ruling, in which the Supreme Court did not directly weigh in on whether Americans also have a right to carry a gun in public but said that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. In his dissent, Hardiman said that Americans do have a right to carry guns outside their homes and that forcing citizens to prove they have a “justifiable need” to exercise that right amounts to an unconstitutional “rationing system.”
Gun ownership poses risks, and “States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent in the case, Drake v. Filko . “But states may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”
In 2016, the 3rd Circuit decided a case involving two men challenging a federal law that prevented them from owning guns, because of their criminal convictions. One was a 41-year-old man convicted of misdemeanor “corruption of a minor” for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old employee, and the other had pleaded guilty to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license, also a misdemeanor.
The court, in an 8-to-7 decision, said that the two men should be allowed to possess a gun, because their offenses “were not serious enough to strip them of their Second Amendment rights.” Hardiman wrote a concurring opinion putting forth an even more expansive view of gun rights. He wrote that in cases involving people convicted of nonviolent crimes, the burden should not fall on citizens to prove that they deserve their Second Amendment rights but on the government to prove they do not, said Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Neily, one of the attorneys who represented Dick Heller in his namesake Supreme Court case, said that Hardiman has been more inclined to protect the Second Amendment than most of his colleagues on the federal bench.
“He does not see it as a second-class right,” Neily said. “His track record suggests a greater willingness than most judges to be involved in what some people see as part of the culture wars.”
 

pga43

Ninja photgrapher
Jul 2, 2018
131
46
28
Old Hickory, TN
www.golfwrx.com
#2
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’





Judge Thomas Hardiman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, shown in Washington in 2016. (Cliff Owen/AP)
By Emma BrownJuly 6 at 11:35 AMEmail the author
In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.
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.
Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.
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.
“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”
Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.
Hardiman, 52, joined the federal bench after being nominated by George W. Bush in 2003. Three years later, he was confirmed to the appeals court. In 2017, he was one of two finalists to fill the seat that had belonged to Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump ultimately chose Neil M. Gorsuch.
But now Hardiman — who, according to Politico, has been endorsed by his colleague on the 3rd Circuit — and the president’s sister — Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, is said to again be among a handful of judges who have made Trump’s shortlist, a possibility that has alarmed gun-control advocates.
Since the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision striking down a D.C. handgun ban in 2008, and then extended that decision to the states in 2010, the justices have been largely silent on the gun debate, refusing to take up a slew of challenges to firearm restrictions from across the country.
Many court watchers believe that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s presence on the court had something to do with that silence and that an avowed Second Amendment defender such as Hardiman — or Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who has also expressed an expansive view of gun rights and is reportedly among Trump’s top picks for the job — could have a profound effect on the court’s handling of gun-related cases.
Two other judges among Trump’s reported top picks to replace the retiring Kennedy — Amy Coney Barrett and Raymond Kethledge — have thinner records on the Second Amendment, making their positions more difficult to analyze. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, writing in The Washington Post, called Kethledge “exemplary” on gun rights, citing his concurrence with an opinion that described the right to bear arms as “fundamental.”
For the Supreme Court to hear a case, four justices must vote in favor of review. Two — Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — have made clear that they believe the high court should take up more Second Amendment cases. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the court’s opinion applying the Second Amendment to state and local laws. Experts say that Hardiman would almost certainly join those protective of gun rights, making it more likely there could be four votes to hear related cases.
Experts also believe that Kennedy may have moderated the Supreme Court’s key decision on guns, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court struck down the District’s ban on handguns. Scalia, writing for the majority, wrote that Americans have a right to have guns at home and for self-defense but also that “long-standing” gun regulations, such as those prohibiting felons from owning guns, are constitutional.
Sanford Levinson, a constitutional-law professor at the University of Texas, said that while it is impossible to know for sure, he and court watchers from across the political spectrum believe that Scalia included explicit approval of some gun regulation in the opinion to persuade Kennedy, the perennial swing voter, to join the opinion.
Kennedy ultimately did, giving the conservatives a 5-to-4 majority in the case.
While others on Trump’s shortlist probably also have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, Hardiman has had the opportunity to express his in two key opinions over the past seven years.
In 2013, Hardiman was part of a three-judge appeals panel deciding the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required citizens seeking a handgun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for such a weapon. The state defined “justifiable need” as an urgent need for self-protection because of “specific threats or recent attacks.”
Two judges voted to uphold the New Jersey law, finding it a constitutional way for the state to advance its goal of protecting public safety. Hardiman dissented, arguing that the law should be struck down.
Central to their disagreement was the Heller ruling, in which the Supreme Court did not directly weigh in on whether Americans also have a right to carry a gun in public but said that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. In his dissent, Hardiman said that Americans do have a right to carry guns outside their homes and that forcing citizens to prove they have a “justifiable need” to exercise that right amounts to an unconstitutional “rationing system.”
Gun ownership poses risks, and “States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent in the case, Drake v. Filko . “But states may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”
In 2016, the 3rd Circuit decided a case involving two men challenging a federal law that prevented them from owning guns, because of their criminal convictions. One was a 41-year-old man convicted of misdemeanor “corruption of a minor” for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old employee, and the other had pleaded guilty to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license, also a misdemeanor.
The court, in an 8-to-7 decision, said that the two men should be allowed to possess a gun, because their offenses “were not serious enough to strip them of their Second Amendment rights.” Hardiman wrote a concurring opinion putting forth an even more expansive view of gun rights. He wrote that in cases involving people convicted of nonviolent crimes, the burden should not fall on citizens to prove that they deserve their Second Amendment rights but on the government to prove they do not, said Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Neily, one of the attorneys who represented Dick Heller in his namesake Supreme Court case, said that Hardiman has been more inclined to protect the Second Amendment than most of his colleagues on the federal bench.
“He does not see it as a second-class right,” Neily said. “His track record suggests a greater willingness than most judges to be involved in what some people see as part of the culture wars.”

We can only hope that all 51 Republican agree. Three women Republican senators are already saying they won't vote for any justice who would agree to strike down Roe v Wade. Haven't heard anything about 2nd amendment judges.

Greg
 

TacticalDillhole

Standby to get some
Jun 26, 2012
2,945
1,587
113
N. Carolina
#5
We can only hope that all 51 Republican agree. Three women Republican senators are already saying they won't vote for any justice who would agree to strike down Roe v Wade. Haven't heard anything about 2nd amendment judges.

Greg
Roe v wade is a dead issue. i dont know why we still talk about it. let the states be the states.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
6,748
6,269
113
#14
Where in the Costitution does it give a Judge at teh federal level any authority on abortion?

We need a Thomas, that 2a ruling SCOTUS didnt go far enough, rare fail on Antonin.


I agree, A judge like Thomas Hardiman is more inclined to leave laws up to the States and not make more Federal law, as long as the State laws do not take away any rights from the individual citizen.

Greg
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
6,748
6,269
113
#16
Nominate someone that causes a fatal stroke on RBG, A pure Constitutionalist. No more deep staters or Dems and Repubs. Rand frikken PauL fits the bill.

I am also available in a few months, I think I would be better than any other Ivy League jackass they nominate.

No Yalies or Harvard or any other ivy leaguers that have been disappointing.
 

Nik H

Constantly Learning
Jan 22, 2014
4,098
2,011
113
Rhode Island
#18
He is my pick

Ban the NFA...pure parity in firearms ownership. What some of the states are doing is purely evil and not constitutional.

My fear is that he won't get through the "nomination" process

Fuck Roe v Wade...leave it be. A woman has the right to choose. I am not interested in judging anyone's decisions but my own.
 

Nik H

Constantly Learning
Jan 22, 2014
4,098
2,011
113
Rhode Island
#19
I quit paying attention to the 9th Circus a long time ago. I'm smack dab in the middle of their jurisdiction. Is there anyone that would make a good candidate from the 9th Circuit ?
No

I have met Michelle Taryn Friedland a number of times as her husband worked for one of my Directors of Engineering. She is as lib as they come. Her husband avoided politics religiously at least around me.
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,203
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#20
He is my pick

Ban the NFA...pure parity in firearms ownership. What some of the states are doing is purely evil and not constitutional.

My fear is that he won't get through the "nomination" process

Fuck Roe v Wade...leave it be. A woman has the right to choose. I am not interested in judging anyone's decisions but my own.
We agree on most, NIk, but on that one youre wrong.

While you have the right to swing your fist anywhere you want, that right stopw where someone else's jaw begins. Want to put a gun in your own mouth (not you personally) and pull the trigger? Fine, jsut dont hurt others.

While I respect the right of every person to their own body, Once the sperm penetrates the egg, it is human in form, just like an acorn is the infant form of an oak. Left un molested that embryo will become adult just as the acorn will become an oak.

Its a child, not a choice.
 

Nik H

Constantly Learning
Jan 22, 2014
4,098
2,011
113
Rhode Island
#21
We agree on most, NIk, but on that one youre wrong.

While you have the right to swing your fist anywhere you want, that right stopw where someone else's jaw begins. Want to put a gun in your own mouth (not you personally) and pull the trigger? Fine, jsut dont hurt others.

While I respect the right of every person to their own body, Once the sperm penetrates the egg, it is human in form, just like an acorn is the infant form of an oak. Left un molested that embryo will become adult just as the acorn will become an oak.

Its a child, not a choice.
I understand and respect your position but much like any illegal act, it will happen regardless of the law.

It is much more gruesome when it is done in some back room.

Where I grew up outside of Boston, I knew lots of young women that had abortions. In no case did I ever think that they weren't doing that unborn child a favor.
 

pga43

Ninja photgrapher
Jul 2, 2018
131
46
28
Old Hickory, TN
www.golfwrx.com
#22
I understand and respect your position but much like any illegal act, it will happen regardless of the law.

It is much more gruesome when it is done in some back room.

Where I grew up outside of Boston, I knew lots of young women that had abortions. In no case did I ever think that they weren't doing that unborn child a favor.

While I'm against abortion, I'm really against the government funded it thru Planned Parenthood. If it's a women's choice, then let her pay for it.

Greg
 
Feb 13, 2017
3,472
3,525
113
Camano Island, Washington
#23
No

I have met Michelle Taryn Friedland a number of times as her husband worked for one of my Directors of Engineering. She is as lib as they come. Her husband avoided politics religiously at least around me.
Hi Nik,

I'm confused.......You say that Taryn Friedland is as lib as they come. How does this help 2A's/Conservatives ? My comment about having quit paying attention to them is about my view of the whole 9th Circuit being liberal. I'd love to see a 2A supporter in the 9th, but I just don't see it happening. Maybe I'm wrong and there is already someone there.

I am self admittedly ignorant about the overall makeup of the 9th. Help me out, what am I missing ?

Thx,

Edit: Ahhh, didn't initially see your "No" at the top of your post.
 
Likes: Nik H

TacticalDillhole

Standby to get some
Jun 26, 2012
2,945
1,587
113
N. Carolina
#24
While I'm against abortion, I'm really against the government funded it thru Planned Parenthood. If it's a women's choice, then let her pay for it.

Greg
They do pay for it, even at planned parenthood, it’s just much cheaper. Not condoning it or supporting it just making sure the facts are their for people to formulate their own beliefs.
 

pga43

Ninja photgrapher
Jul 2, 2018
131
46
28
Old Hickory, TN
www.golfwrx.com
#25
They do pay for it, even at planned parenthood, it’s just much cheaper. Not condoning it or supporting it just making sure the facts are their for people to formulate their own beliefs.
Planned Parenthood is funded/subsisdized by the US Government to the tune of $500 million so while the "patients" may pay a fee, I don't think any federal money should go to fund PP. Planned Parenthood also has donated over $38 million to Democratic candidates. far more money the the NRA gives to any pro 2nd amendment candidates.


Greg
 

TacticalDillhole

Standby to get some
Jun 26, 2012
2,945
1,587
113
N. Carolina
#27
Planned Parenthood is funded/subsisdized by the US Government to the tune of $500 million so while the "patients" may pay a fee, I don't think any federal money should go to fund PP. Planned Parenthood also has donated over $38 million to Democratic candidates. far more money the the NRA gives to any pro 2nd amendment candidates.


Greg
I’m not disagreeing at all but you said they don’t pay for it, I’m just clarifying that yes they do at a substantive discount.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
6,748
6,269
113
#29
True and I dont trust them either. The dude is a liberal who migh or might not lke guns , look at his record.
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,203
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#31
I understand and respect your position but much like any illegal act, it will happen regardless of the law.

It is much more gruesome when it is done in some back room.

Where I grew up outside of Boston, I knew lots of young women that had abortions. In no case did I ever think that they weren't doing that unborn child a favor.
I understand your leftist leaning compassion.
There are many people looking to adopt..so much so they go overseas...the child of those women might have had a wonderful life put up for adoption.

Except in the case of rape, they made a decision. Decisions entail responsibility. "I made a mistake", "The birth control failed." etc. does not abrogate responsibility.

If abortion were considered murder, and if you did it back alley and got found out, went to jail for murder, it might change some things.

Change PP from a assisting murders to assisting adoptions.

I can only see it in the case of the life of the mother.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
6,748
6,269
113
#32
The fed courts have no standing ruling on this subject, its a states matter. Like morst things these despotics fucks but their nose into. Fuck the SCOTUS I dont need them to interpret a goddam thing , our founders wrote the constitution in plain language, they just dont like the rules and think they can change them. SCOTUS is not even a constitutionally mandated court, they serve at the behest of congress so they are not even a co equal branch like the fantacy they teach. Fuck them.
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,757
615
113
GA
#33
Nominate someone that causes a fatal stroke on RBG, A pure Constitutionalist. No more deep staters or Dems and Repubs. Rand frikken PauL fits the bill.

I am also available in a few months, I think I would be better than any other Ivy League jackass they nominate.

No Yalies or Harvard or any other ivy leaguers that have been disappointing.
They haven't been disappointing because they are ivy leaguers. People cut from that cloth are everywhere. Ivied campuses may not be as homogeneous as you think...

https://paw.princeton.edu/node/18921
 

TacticalDillhole

Standby to get some
Jun 26, 2012
2,945
1,587
113
N. Carolina
#37
I understand your leftist leaning compassion.
There are many people looking to adopt..so much so they go overseas...the child of those women might have had a wonderful life put up for adoption.

Except in the case of rape, they made a decision. Decisions entail responsibility. "I made a mistake", "The birth control failed." etc. does not abrogate responsibility.

If abortion were considered murder, and if you did it back alley and got found out, went to jail for murder, it might change some things.

Change PP from a assisting murders to assisting adoptions.

I can only see it in the case of the life of the mother.
Are you for the death penalty?
 

Fig

Janitor of the Hide
Mar 15, 2018
2,171
3,180
113
The Most Dangerous City in the USA
#39
The state should never have the power to kill its citizens. If it does you are basically saying the judicial system is infallible. If not, then how do you justify irreversible decisions? Because some people need to die? Totally agree, but not once they’ve been captured.
 

TacticalDillhole

Standby to get some
Jun 26, 2012
2,945
1,587
113
N. Carolina
#40
I think protecting the life of the innocent unborn is a bit different than the life of someone who has proven themselves unfit to live in a civilized society.
It’s not. A life is a life. To be against abortion and pro death penalty is the height of hypocrisy. It’s an issue I havent reconciled myself. We can justify killing certain people all we want for certain reasons, but it says all men are created equal and entitled to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t say the state gets to decide who lives and who dies.
 
Likes: Fig
Jan 28, 2011
2,757
615
113
GA
#42
I am just going by experience with them. Name one good Ivy league president in the last 100 years.


Going back to Kennedy there is only one Pres or VP that has entered an Ivy League school in a way other than family connections or affirmative action and that is Bill Clinton. For that matter, any presidential candidates I can think of (e.g. John Kerry) falls into the same boat, as do many high level appointees like Robert Mueller (the very dense black matter essence of WASPy privilege). I can't name a president I like who went to an Ivy unless we reach back to Theodore. The problem with politicians, generally, is the type of person (megalomaniac) who decides to run. This is hardly an indictment of their classmates or the school as a whole.

So, to digress...

Clarence Thomas was Bush's 6th pick and was an affirmative action admit to Yale. The Robert Bork fiasco had taken place only 3 years prior to his nomination. Being "Borked" was what many potential supreme court nominees have wanted to avoid ever since. Bush picks one through five simply turned down further consideration. You and your family are dragged through the mud, every part of your life open to inspection. And if mangled skeletons can't be found in the closet or under the bed then someone will just insinuate them, which is good enough for the media. The process spells a possible end to your career. The spectacle of nomination is not one ending in the best choice, it is a reality show whose award goes to the last jurist standing.

Historically, the conformation process centers on character, scholarly qualifications, policy, and a variety of abstract theories about judicial behavior. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to really break this tradition when he searched for a single quality in a Supreme Court nominee, someone who would uphold his New Deal legislation. This was a precedent so disgusting I find it treasonous.

By the time Reagan showed up in the White House and demanded someone who read the constitution as it was written originalism was already viewed as a toxic relic.

That Clarence was chosen as Thurgood Marshall's successor is laughable. Clarence is an intellectual affront to Thurgood. Clarence Thomas was, and probably still is, a bald faced plagiarist. This was discussed during his conformation hearings and should have immediately disqualified him. The only thing Clarence and Thurgood have in common is somewhat similar skin tone. Clarence is a mute and doesn't write much. Clarence is sitting on the bench as a result of social engineering and exists as an organic matter tribute to the legacy of Lyndon Johnson. Something a bit ironic. This is my way of saying, amongst other things, that an Ivy league degree means, by itself, absolutely nothing.

The Ginsburg hearings revealed that she was an avowed judicial activist who sees Congress as nothing more than a legislative foe. This should have immediately disqualified her. Ginsburg actually is pretty smart and boasts a strong academic record. But to the left this is merely window dressing. An assload of people have as good or better qualifications. Socialists embrace the gift of Ginsburg's judicial activism (delivered in bright red communist wrapping paper) as the natural course of human nature, that personal views should necessarily overtake ones senses and nullify the constitution when its content runs counter to ones religious beliefs or whatever the social engineering game du jour is. After all, it's for the good of the children. Of course, activism is good unlesss it comes from the right... then it's unconstitutional.

What a topsy-turvy world we live in where adhering to the letter of the constitution is an affront to what it means to be an American (Obama said as much dozens of times). Many Supreme Court nominees, like presidential candidates, want to be glamorous rock stars. John Roberts (who can hold his own) was often characterized as a legal rock star by the press. This sort of image for a Supreme Court justice is just fucking dumb and lazy. Being an originalist is like learning to play old white guy tunes on the piano instead of working on your face paint and going through a case of hair spray per day. Think Glenn Gould vs Dee Snyder.

From what I can tell Hardiman has more in common with Gould than Snyder. That role is more difficult intellectually, and close to impossible politically. Whether an appointee is nominated from the left or the right I don't want an activist. I want lady justice. I want a constitutionalist. Rock stars belong on stage, not on the bench.
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2017
2,134
2,098
113
#43
If the Repulic and the individul state function as intended it is We the People who dispense justice thru our chosen and appointed . Trial by a Jury of Peers . We are responsible for rule of Law and dispensation of justice . The mindset needs to change . The verbage needs to change . We need to speak act and think as Free Men charged with stewardship and responsibility instead of acting as victims of the State and Government . We are the Government . Some need a reminder .

Edit. Tactical Dillhole this was a rebuttal to your comment about the State deciding who lives and whom dies .
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,757
615
113
GA
#44
If the Repulic and the individul state function as intended it is We the People who dispense justice thru our chosen and appointed . Trial by a Jury of Peers . We are responsible for rule of Law and dispensation of justice . The mindset needs to change . The verbage needs to change . We need to speak act and think as Free Men charged with stewardship and responsibility instead of acting as victims of the State and Government . We are the Government . Some need a reminder .
^^^ Yep. We The People... Unfortunately, this is a role that requires a body civic minded people. Civics class, as I remember it, has been marginalized in favor of lessons in incivility.
 
Last edited:

MarinePMI

Battery Operated Grunt
Jun 3, 2010
2,760
1,201
113
San Diego, Ca
#45
It’s not. A life is a life. To be against abortion and pro death penalty is the height of hypocrisy. It’s an issue I havent reconciled myself. We can justify killing certain people all we want for certain reasons, but it says all men are created equal and entitled to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t say the state gets to decide who lives and who dies.
Oh, I can reconcile it quite easily. One life is innocent, and has made no decisions yet. The other has made decisions that involved taking another life. One (the former) deserves a chance to make decisions, the second (latter) deserves to stand accountable for their decisions. Easy peasy...
Thinking about this a little more, I'd like to add. One is taking a life is out of choice, the other is an obligation to preserve society. Either case is a shitty deal. Taking a human life is probably the worst thing we have to do. Ask anyone who has seen the elephant what they felt. Most will say it was shitty, but something that needed doing (at least that was how I rationalized it). Much like having to do some unpleasant task that needs doing, and well, you're it, so it falls on you. Abortion isn't something that you're obligated to do out of responsibility, it is a choice.

That's how I view the distinction between abortion and Capital punishment. One is murder (abortion), usually out of convenience. The other is putting down an aberration, that is harmful to the society as a whole, and a responsibility. Neither is pleasant (nor should it be), but the latter is a responsibility, the former is elective.
 

Fig

Janitor of the Hide
Mar 15, 2018
2,171
3,180
113
The Most Dangerous City in the USA
#46


Going back to Kennedy there is only one Pres or VP that has entered an Ivy League school in a way other than family connections or affirmative action and that is Bill Clinton. For that matter, any presidential candidates I can think of (e.g. John Kerry) falls into the same boat, as do many high level appointees like Robert Mueller (the very dense black matter essence of WASPy privilege). I can't name a president I like who went to an Ivy unless we reach back to Theodore. The problem with politicians, generally, is the type of person (megalomaniac) who decides to run. This is hardly an indictment of their classmates or the school as a whole.

So, to digress...

Clarence Thomas was Bush's 6th pick and was an affirmative action admit to Yale. The Robert Bork fiasco had taken place only 3 years prior to his nomination. Being "Borked" was what many potential supreme court nominees have wanted to avoid ever since. Bush picks one through five simply turned down further consideration. You and your family are dragged through the mud, every part of your life open to inspection. And if mangled skeletons can't be found in the closet or under the bed then someone will just insinuate them, which is good enough for the media. The process spells a possible end to your career. The spectacle of nomination is not one ending in the best choice, it is a reality show whose award goes to the last jurist standing.

Historically, the conformation process centers on character, scholarly qualifications, policy, and a variety of abstract theories about judicial behavior. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to really break this tradition when he searched for a single quality in a Supreme Court nominee, someone who would uphold his New Deal legislation. This was a precedent so disgusting I find it treasonous.

By the time Reagan showed up in the White House and demanded someone who read the constitution as it was written originalism was already viewed as a toxic relic.

That Clarence was chosen as Thurgood Marshall's successor is laughable. Clarence is an intellectual affront to Thurgood. Clarence Thomas was, and probably still is, a bald faced plagiarist. This was discussed during his conformation hearings and should have immediately disqualified him. The only thing Clarence and Thurgood have in common is somewhat similar skin tone. Clarence is a mute and doesn't write much. Clarence is sitting on the bench as a result of social engineering and exists as an organic matter tribute to the legacy of Lyndon Johnson. Something a bit ironic. This is my way of saying, amongst other things, that an Ivy league degree means, by itself, absolutely nothing.

The Ginsburg hearings revealed that she was an avowed judicial activist who sees Congress as nothing more than a legislative foe. This should have immediately disqualified her. Ginsburg actually is pretty smart and boasts a strong academic record. But to the left this is merely window dressing. An assload of people have as good or better qualifications. Socialists embrace the gift of Ginsburg's judicial activism (delivered in bright red communist wrapping paper) as the natural course of human nature, that personal views should necessarily overtake ones senses and nullify the constitution when its content runs counter to ones religious beliefs or whatever the social engineering game du jour is. After all, it's for the good of the children. Of course, activism is good unlesss it comes from the right... then it's unconstitutional.

What a topsy-turvy world we live in where adhering to the letter of the constitution is an affront to what it means to be an American (Obama said as much dozens of times). Many Supreme Court nominees, like presidential candidates, want to be glamorous rock stars. John Roberts (who can hold his own) was often characterized as a legal rock star by the press. This sort of image for a Supreme Court justice is just fucking dumb and lazy. Being an originalist is like learning to play old white guy tunes on the piano instead of working on your face paint and going through a case of hair spray per day. Think Glenn Gould vs Dee Snyder.

From what I can tell Hardiman has more in common with Gould than Snyder. That role is more difficult intellectually, and close to impossible politically. Whether an appointee is nominated from the left or the right I don't want an activist. I want lady justice. I want a constitutionalist. Rock stars belong on stage, not on the bench.
So RGB is a learned scholar, and Thomas is an idiot? That is a perfect demonstration between education and wisdom, and how the two are more often than not inversely proportional. I’ll take a wise idiot over an ignorant genius any day of the week.

Your feelings about Thomas are MSM generated. Laura Ingram clerked for Thomas and believes he’s brilliant. He doesn’t talk much because he believes the lawyers should make their cases and it isn’t the judge’s job to make the arguements for them.

I work right beside a Harvard Business School grad. He may be the “smartest” guy in the office, but he’s a total idiot.

A persons level of education and academic achievements are more a measure of how much the like school, and how good they are in a classroom than anything else. Not many can do shit in the real world, and often they know so much that just isn’t so.

The Ivy League sheepskin was nothing more than a passport into the club. It still is to some extent, but not like it used to be.

I’ve interviewed people with an Ivy League degree, and while not grounds for outright rejection it weighs heavily against them with me.

I’m not paying for that. I don’t care if my kids get in. I’d much rather invest a quarter million plus for them than give it to organizations indoctrinating kids to hate America.
 
Likes: RNWRKNP

TacticalDillhole

Standby to get some
Jun 26, 2012
2,945
1,587
113
N. Carolina
#47
If the Repulic and the individul state function as intended it is We the People who dispense justice thru our chosen and appointed . Trial by a Jury of Peers . We are responsible for rule of Law and dispensation of justice . The mindset needs to change . The verbage needs to change . We need to speak act and think as Free Men charged with stewardship and responsibility instead of acting as victims of the State and Government . We are the Government . Some need a reminder .

Edit. Tactical Dillhole this was a rebuttal to your comment about the State deciding who lives and whom dies .
I understand. My statement required no rebuttal. Just pontificating the intracicies of our laws. No where in the constitution does it say anything about the death penalty.......or abortion for that matter. But it does say life liberty and pursuit........in our Declaration of Independence. Now when I said I have t reconciled it myself it’s because I don’t have a firm grasp personally on either of these issues. I can see it from all sides. When it comes to the death penalty, I sometimes wish we would apply to pedophiles rapists and child molesters as well as murderers. In lieu of that I’d settle for a long life of excruciating existence where they would kill themselves from the horrors of their daily life. But then we get the whole cruel and unusual thing. Did the founders include the death penalty as cruel and unusual? 🤷‍♂️

Then comes abortion. I get it. Once there is a heartbeat there is life right? So how is this ok? I don’t have the answer. But what I do know is that none of us have the right to decide for anyone else. We all have different belief systems and I don’t believe we have the right through our legal system to push that on others. That’s what this whole abortion argument is doing on both sides. Just keep it between the dr and patient and leave congress our presidents the Supreme Court our governors our state legislators out of it. It’s none of their business anyway. I do however believe that while it is a woman’s body, the father has a say in it as well. The procedure should require consent of both parties (save rape) or in the instance of death of the father his next of kin should perhaps have that choice in their absence.

Point being it’s conplicated and we oversimplify it. But we have had rulings on both issues yet we continue to divide our country to this day over it. It’s no different then heller. We all just keep screaming till we get what we want.
 
Likes: RNWRKNP

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,203
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#48
Are you for the death penalty?
Absolutely against it for one reason. The system make mistakes. See Fig's post....

New #39
The state should never have the power to kill its citizens. If it does you are basically saying the judicial system is infallible. If not, then how do you justify irreversible decisions? Because some people need to die? Totally agree, but not once they’ve been captured.
 

TacticalDillhole

Standby to get some
Jun 26, 2012
2,945
1,587
113
N. Carolina
#49
Absolutely against it for one reason. The system make mistakes. See Fig's post....

New #39
The state should never have the power to kill its citizens. If it does you are basically saying the judicial system is infallible. If not, then how do you justify irreversible decisions? Because some people need to die? Totally agree, but not once they’ve been captured.
Exactly. I had the pleasure (sarcasm) of being a juror on a death penalty case last year. It really challenged my belief system. Since then I’ve been really trying to reconcile these two arguments because they are in fact related
 

Maggot

Philo-Sophia Fidelis et veritas
Jul 27, 2007
7,203
1,178
113
Charlottesville, Virginia
#50
I

Point being it’s conplicated and we oversimplify it. But we have had rulings on both issues yet we continue to divide our country to this day over it. It’s no different then heller. We all just keep screaming till we get what we want.
I see no oversimplification, and Im not screaming.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. That is once and always murder. Period.