SCOTUS Nominee ‘Extremist’ for Believing Americans Have a Right to Own and Carry Firearms

From: dailycaller.com,  by Molly Prince,  on Jul 7, 2018

LAW PROFESSOR CALLS POSSIBLE SCOTUS NOMINEE ‘EXTREMIST’ FOR BELIEVING AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN AND CARRY FIREARMS

A law professor described Judge Thomas Hardiman, a candidate for the impending Supreme Court nomination, as a “Second Amendment extremist” for his originalist view of the Constitution, specifically regarding the Second Amendment.

Professor Adam Winkler at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law argued that if Hardiman were confirmed, the Supreme Court would be more likely to take up cases challenging current firearm laws, lending the potential for those laws to be struck down. Consequently, with Hardiman on the Supreme Court, there would be more legal gun ownership in what are now heavily regulated states like California and Connecticut.

“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns,” Winkler told The Washington Post. “He thinks the only type of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are the ones that existed at the founding.”

Most notably, Hardiman wrote a 40-page dissent for Drake v. Filko where he argued the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a firearm in public “because the need for self-defense naturally exists both outside and inside the home, I would hold that the Second Amendment applies outside the home.”

Hardiman, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, expressed his views on how he interprets the Constitution in the dissent for Muller v. Maenza, writing, “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.”

President Donald Trump reportedly narrowed down his list of potential Supreme Court candidates to three federal appeals judges: Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Raymond Kethledge.

Trump is expected to announce his nominee on July 9.

Follow Molly on Twitter

~~~~~~~~~~

OK, today is Saturday and on Monday, and I’m not sure of the final group – I’ve seen it described as three as well as four, but regardless, the president is going to identify his nominee for the Supreme Court. I’ll admit that even though I’ve read a good bit about the “final three or four,” I haven’t had any reason to favor one over another. I do remember a democrat being interviewed was complaining about the conservative credentials of the favored few and he lamented that a couple were also staunch 2nd Amendment supporters – he didn’t offer any names, but it now seems that Judge Hardiman must be one of them. So, if he is still in play, he may be my new favorite.

It matters not what I think, President Trump has studied the qualifications of each candidate, he’s had probably more advice on which one to choose than he really needed and he had dinner with VP Mike Pence (who also vetted the candidates) and I’m sure that they discussed the pick over Chick-Fil-A sandwiches. 

Regardless of who the president picks, we’re fortunate in the timing of this 2nd pick and that the court should now be weighted slightly towards original interpretations of the Constitution rather than a “progressive” interpretation of a document that changes with the whims of the social leftists. And, while not wishing her any ill, Justice Ginsburg isn’t getting any younger either. Could President Trump even have a chance at a THIRD nomination? Imagine the conniption fit the left would throw if that happened!

Garnet92.

 

 



Categories: Political

Tags:

16 replies

  1. Whoever President Trump picks will be better than anyone a democrat has ever picked. That being said, the professor is an idiot in my book and most of these Constitutional originalists aren’t really originalists. A true originalist would rule against any law that placed any restriction on firearms or ammunition or missiles or tanks… The 2nd doesn’t specify what type of arms.

    I would also point out that requiring ID is a restriction, any ban based on behavior (felon, mental, whatever…) is a restriction, any ban based on skin color, national origin, gender or anything else the dimwits can come up with is a restriction and therefore unconstitutional.

    If you want to keep someone from possessing arms then keep them in prison or a mental facility the way we used to before liberals ruled that mental patients were being denied basic rights. They weren’t then, they are now as many are homeless and on drugs of every sort trying to find their next meal or hit just to not feel scared of everything around them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Absolutely, Lauren. I understand what you’re saying and maybe these candidates aren’t really TRUE constitutional originalists, but frankly, any one of them is so far superior to what we’ve had up until Gorsuch, that I am pleased. Personally, I can accept some constrictions on our constitutional rights under specific circumstances, but that’s just me and my constrictions will be much more limited than any democrat.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. The leftist crowd is terrified that the unholy sacrament of Moloch might be overturned, letting states decide abortion.
    Or worse, decide life begins at conception, and pre-born is afforded Constitutional right to life.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yep, abortion is their “priority one” for sure, but gun control isn’t too far behind. Those are issues that “belong” to the dems and there will be holy hell to pay if the SC turns over Roe or defangs the gun control crowd.

      Like

  3. That made me really like Hardiman!!!! I’ll be listening tomorrow night at 9.

    Wasn’t it Cruz who said there may be 3 SCOTUS picks for Trump this term?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Every success the Left racks up requires their unilateral re-defining of our language, including words like “extreme” and “extremist.” It is yet another of the many facets of their dishonesty and a very effective weapon in the undeclared civil war they are waging against the Constitution and our republic.

    If the inescapable logic of the right to self-protection forces judges, liberal or otherwise, to concede that people should be allowed to possess firearms in their own homes, then it naturally stands to reason that that the right to self-defense does not end at your own front door. That’s not “extremist” logic it’s basic common sense. But of course the Left’s advance to power requires the abandonment of common sense.

    I haven’t read much on the judges that are in the running. My confidence in Trump to pick a good, originalist nominee rests completely with the people who are advising him because Trump won’t know anything except that which he is told (which isn’t meant to be a criticism, given that I am in the same boat). I hope he listens to people like Jay Sekulow, Ted Cruz, Mark Levin and Andrew McCarthy who know the judges and embrace the Constitution, and rejects the input of the RINOs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This situation shows how far the dems have fallen – when the original words of our Constitution are considered “extremist.” Of course, in truth, nothing is what it seems with them. They’re not really FOR anything, only AGAINST anything that we hold dear. In their playbook, they MUST do anything it takes to turn voters against their opposition – the result being a vote for them – and, a return to power. Power is their god, and they are loyal to their god.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Whoever Trump picks has my sympathy and prayers because they’re about to be put through the wringer. They will be asked lengthy but stupid questions, which will be reworded and asked again in hopes of making them contradict themselves. That all happens after they get beat up in the media for a few days once Trump makes the announcement.

    While the professor sees second amendment support as extremist, I’d say it’s sorely needed. I’d like to see some clarification on the confiscation issue regarding mental state before that gets so out of control it can never be reined in. Twelve states have already implemented it, and while it may be well intentioned, it’s still infringement.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s not going to be pretty. You’re right, they’ll be trying their rhetorical tricks to “catch” the nominee in some sort of error or misstatement – doesn’t have to be anything of consequence for the dems to get all bent out of shape about – they have short fuses. I know that none of the finalists are looking forward to the inquisition they’re about to endure, but assuming they survive, we know that we have a strong individual on the court.

      Like

  6. Because supporting the actual wording of the Constitution is so EXTREEEEEEEEEEME!

    The GOP (well, the few that don’t oppose the liberal hatred for that old document written by white slave owners) should catalog each and every statement the Democrats make in opposition to those actual words and make that opposition a key to all of their campaigns.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. I would love to see the left have their conniption fit, to put it bluntly so sorry Charley. You thought you were so morally superior to to us ( Harry Reid and Obama) and you didn’t think of consequences. Well the roosters have come home.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I would quibble with your comment in one aspect, bescher. That is in saying that Reid and Obama believed that they were “morally” superior to us.

      Paraphrasing “morally”: in the sage words of Inigo Montoya (Princess Bride), ” I do not think it meant what they thought it meant.” They never knew what morally really meant, they only knew what they “thought it meant.”

      They never understood morality, honor, character, or integrity – they couldn’t comprehend those concepts – they only understood what was necessary to support their quest for power. And that trait is still pervasive in the democrat left. There is no inherent goodness in the souls of these evil people, there is only disdain for goodness.

      Like

Trackbacks

  1. SCOTUS Nominee ‘Extremist’ for Believing Americans Have a Right to Own and Carry Firearms | 2nd Amendment, Shooting & Firearms Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: