Is Obama's Supreme Court Pick A Trojan Horse For Gun Control?

[couch protester]

Merrick Garland has 'very liberal view of gun rights'

That's all we need is another control freak gangster ignoring the Constitution and making himself above the law. Obama probably had Justice Scalia wiped out before his presidency came to end.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/

 

[Disir]

No. But, if you work real hard you might be able to whip up enough fear and panic out of the terminally stupid.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Supreme Court can't change The Constitution.

 

[couch protester]

The liberal government draw democrats into a frenzy so they can scare them with gun fear propaganda, that way it will seem as if the citizens desire gun control. This is called reverse psychology and getting the population to jump on the band wagon so they can feel like its their idea. The liberal government only need your cooperation first, then your obedience will follow

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The liberal government draw democrats into a frenzy so they can scare them with gun fear propaganda, that way it will seem as if the citizens desire gun control. This is called reverse psychology and getting the population to jump on the band wagon so they can feel like its their idea. The liberal government only need your cooperation first, then your obedience will follow

The citizenry can desire anything, but the Judicial Branch doesn't have the authority to change The Constitution.

 

[couch protester]

The Supreme Court can't change The Constitution.

That didn't stop them from interpreting the Constitution.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Supreme Court can't change The Constitution.

That didn't stop them from interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution, either.

 

[couch protester]

No. But, if you work real hard you might be able to whip up enough fear and panic out of the terminally stupid.

You mean like the fear and panic liberals speak of how dangerous Trump is?
...morons have IQ of 51–70 mostly uneducated democrats vote Obama and democrat, which were a majority of 100 million uneducated welfare voters, ghettos, trailer trash, thugs, dropouts, baby mamas, illegals, and immigrants.

 

[couch protester]

The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution, either.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which theSupreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's rightto possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit inHeller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of theFirearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , norPresser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution, either.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which theSupreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's rightto possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit inHeller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of theFirearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , norPresser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Show me where The Constitution says The Supreme Court has the power to interpret tHe Constitution.

 

[Political Junky]

When Trump loses, the US will have 3 or 4 more justices. Deal with it.

 

[Stephanie]

ran across this. but don't anyone call the man BIASED, a left winger, hater, The video at the site

SNIP:
Obama SCOTUS Nominee Mocked Donald Trump at Yale in 2012 (VIDEO)

March 19, 2016

Obama’s supposedly moderate nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court mocked Donald Trump during a court competition at Yale in 2012.

The Weekly Standard reports:

Video: Obama Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland Mocks Donald Trump

Here’s video of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, appearing to mock Donald Trump at a moot court competition at Yale University in the fall of 2012:

“Does your theory depend on the fact that this proposition you think is reasonable?” Garland asks a law student at the competition. “What if Donald Trump became the secretary of state of Arizona and insisted there’s only one way you can prove citizenship, and that’s with your long-form birth certificate?”

The crowd snickered.

Garland went on, “You would still say that that rules, right?”

Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court yesterday by President Obama.

Watch the video:
Obama SCOTUS Nominee Mocked Donald Trump at Yale in 2012 (VIDEO) - Progressives Today

 

[Disir]

You mean like the fear and panic liberals speak of how dangerous Trump is?
...morons have IQ of 51–70 mostly uneducated democrats vote Obama and democrat, which were a majority of 100 million uneducated welfare voters, ghettos, trailer trash, thugs, dropouts, baby mamas, illegals, and immigrants.

I mean the fear and panic spread by lying. The Second Amendment was incorporated and there is not a damn thing that anyone can do about it. Nothing. So, the shit you are drumming up is intentionally, willfully and consciously lying.

 

[eagle1462010]

The new court if Libs get to select them all.

 

[Disir]

The new court if Libs get to select them all.

What cases are you watching?

 

[eagle1462010]

The new court if Libs get to select them all.

What cases are you watching?

Many are up for the Supremes.........some with States opposing Obama's actions..........with 8 supremes.......

Tell me you don't think we have Judicial Activism in this country.............

 

[Disir]

The new court if Libs get to select them all.

What cases are you watching?

Many are up for the Supremes.........some with States opposing Obama's actions..........with 8 supremes.......

Tell me you don't think we have Judicial Activism in this country.............

What cases?

 

[eagle1462010]

The new court if Libs get to select them all.

What cases are you watching?

Many are up for the Supremes.........some with States opposing Obama's actions..........with 8 supremes.......

Tell me you don't think we have Judicial Activism in this country.............

What cases?

Maybe later.............I don't feel like pulling up the supreme court schedule right now........You can google it if you like.

 

[Disir]

The new court if Libs get to select them all.

What cases are you watching?

Many are up for the Supremes.........some with States opposing Obama's actions..........with 8 supremes.......

Tell me you don't think we have Judicial Activism in this country.............

What cases?

Maybe later.............I don't feel like pulling up the supreme court schedule right now........You can google it if you like.

You have no idea because you aren't watching any.

 

[eagle1462010]

The new court if Libs get to select them all.

What cases are you watching?

Many are up for the Supremes.........some with States opposing Obama's actions..........with 8 supremes.......

Tell me you don't think we have Judicial Activism in this country.............

What cases?

Maybe later.............I don't feel like pulling up the supreme court schedule right now........You can google it if you like.

You have no idea because you aren't watching any.

I watch them from time to time when it suits me...............doesn't change the deal that we have no reason to let Obama pick a new Justice..................