Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
68chris

Hardiman, and Gorsuch: US Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

Two great pics. Of particular interest to Nj residents was Hardiman's dissenting opinion in Drake.

 

 

"Hardiman’s opinion in Drake v. Filko is a strong statement of his commitment to a more expansive view of the Second Amendment. The case was a challenge to a New Jersey law regulating the issuance of permits to carry handguns in public. Among other things, the gun owner seeking a permit is required to show that he has a “justifiable need” to carry the gun. The panel ruled in favor of the state, but Hardiman dissented from that ruling. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago both “indicate that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” and that – at least in his view – the law violates the Second Amendment. After considering the case at three different conferences, the Supreme Court declined to review the case on the merits, as it did with several other cases presenting the same question."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!  I just read the entire dissent and I am VERY unhappy with the majority decision in this case.

 

I am EXTREMELY grateful for Judge Hardiman's dissent and the solid arguments he made for his decision!

 

He is truly a Constitutionalist and is just the man to take over for Judge Scalia!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after doing some pretty exhaustive research on each of the final 4 (gorsuch, hardiman, pryor and sykes), i've concluded that any of the 4 would make outstanding justices and put 2A rights in VERY good hands for many years to come. i honestly can't decide which of them i'd prefer, but i'd probably say hardiman just because one would think he'd completely understand what bullshit we're up against here in nj.

 

what gets me giddy at night is thinking about ruth bader ginsburg (83 years old) and steven breyer (78). trump could very will have the ability to seat 3 of these 4 people in the coming years.  :preved:

 

guess we'll find out who's up first on tuesday...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems are boycotting cabinet nominee hearings.

This will not be easy, painless or pleasant.

 

No, but it may cause the dems not to filibuster when it comes to the nominee. Because they know that the "nuclear option" will surely be invoked.  They (dems)  might save their filibuster fight for the "next" SCOTUS pick, especially if it is a liberal justice (Ginsbug, Breyer, maybe even Kennedy - the Swing vote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but it may cause the dems not to filibuster when it comes to the nominee. Because they know that the "nuclear option" will surely be invoked. They (dems) might save their filibuster fight for the "next" SCOTUS pick, especially if it is a liberal justice (Ginsbug, Breyer, maybe even Kennedy - the Swing vote).

I don't think they are " thinking " that far.

Unfortunately the " nuclear option " is probably how this nomination is going to come fruition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardiman was prob a better bet for the 2A crowd, no? What I've read stated that this guy hasn't really spoken about him rights before and no one really knows where he stands. Correct?

 

That's kind of what I'm seeing... no DIRECT 2A decisions, but he was criticized just a tad by one conservative blog, for his position on one gun case. I'm no lawyer, hard for me to weigh in... but here's the link, so you can read for yourself:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Mr. Gorsuch take on Constitution, it should be in favor of 2A, no ?

 

2A says "shall not be infringed". 

 

------

In a 2005 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive "to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best."[35]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kind of what I'm seeing... no DIRECT 2A decisions, but he was criticized just a tad by one conservative blog, for his position on one gun case. I'm no lawyer, hard for me to weigh in... but here's the link, so you can read for yourself:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html 

The link doesnt work.. was that article referring to a "Gun possession case involving a Felon who didnt know he was a Felon" ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link doesnt work.. was that article referring to a "Gun possession case involving a Felon who didnt know he was a Felon" ?

 

Good lord, I'm so "link-challenged"... here's the article, from American Thinker, published yesterday:

 

Judge Neil Gorsuch: Some Cause for Concern

 

In recent days, news outlets have been reporting that 10th Circuit judge Neil Gorsuch has now risen to the top of President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees.  He apparently replaces Judge William Pryor, who was widely reported as previously leading the pack of potential nominees.  Judge Pryor faced significant backlash from many on the right, including Evangelical Christians, criticizing Pryor's apparent support of the radical homosexual and transgender agenda.

The danger in being the front runner for a spot on the High Court is that you receive intense scrutiny, and, as with most candidates, Judge Gorsuch is difficult to evaluate fully. 

Having spent some time digging into Judge Gorsuch's background, we have found many good indicators.  First, we should say that we personally knew his mother – Anne Gorsuch Burford, a lawyer whom President Reagan appointed in 1981 as director of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Anne was both principled and fearless – taking many arrows in her faithful pursuit of President Reagan's environmental agenda.  Sadly, the Reagan administration failed to provide her the backing she deserved, leading to her early departure from that position.  Judge Gorsuch's distinguished maternal pedigree should not be overlooked.

As to Judge Gorsuch's judicial record, he authored the excellent opinion in United States v. Ackerman, 831 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2016), which, in an alternative holding, determined that government accessing a person's emails constitutes a "search" under the revitalized property rights trespass test articulated by Justice Scalia in the case of United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).  Additionally, Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in the 10th Circuit, in what became the Hobby Lobby case in the U.S. Supreme Court, determining that the religious freedom of Christian businesses trumps the "right" of a woman to have her employer subsidize the killing of her unborn baby.  Finally, Judge Gorsuch is a vocal critic of the modern "Administrative State" – advocating the elimination of the doctrine of "Chevron deferense," which has given unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats vast and unconstitutional power over just about every aspect of our lives.

On the other hand, there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch's record.  Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry.  To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author.  Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion.  He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment.

The facts of the case are these.  A New Mexico policeman observed Mr. Rodriguez, a convenience store clerk, carrying a concealed handgun.  Carrying a concealed loaded handgun is illegal in New Mexico without a permit but legal if one has a license to do so.  The officer, upon seeing a Rodriguez's handgun, detained him, then – acting first and asking questions later – forcibly disarmed Rodriguez.  After finding out that Rodriguez did not, in fact, have a license to carry and, indeed, was a convicted felon, the officer placed him under arrest.

Of course, hard cases make bad law.  But the precedent from the Rodriguez opinion will affect police-citizen relations in New Mexico, and possibly elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, for many years to come.  Not bothering to figure out the legality of Rodriguez's firearm before detaining and disarming him, the officer's initial actions would have been the same even if Mr. Rodriguez had been a lawful gun owner.

According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm.  This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him.  Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights.  Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

The Circuit Court based this decision on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) – the "stop and frisk" doctrine.   One of the holdings from Terry is that, if the police have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is both "armed and dangerous," they can temporarily seize his weapon to keep everyone safe.  Of course, anyone with a smidgeon of common sense knows that just being an "armed" law-abiding citizen does not also make a person "dangerous" any more than a police officer with a gun should be considered dangerous.

Unfortunately, the Rodriguez opinion allows the police to conflate the two concepts and treat all armed persons as if they were automatically dangerous.  According to the panel opinion joined by Judge Gorsuch, the mere presence of a loaded concealed firearm "alone is enough to justify [the officer's] action in removing the handgun from Defendant's waistband for the protection of himself and others."

To be sure, Rodriguez did not raise a Second Amendment claim before the court, and the court cited various Fourth Amendment cases to justify its bad decision.  But judges cannot completely hide behind precedent.  Judge Gorsuch was free to express his disagreements with those precedents, even if he felt obliged to concur in the result.  But that is not what he did.

Instead, the court went so far as to quote Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Terry for the pre-Heller assertion that "'concealed weapons create an immediate and severe danger to the public.'"  Is that what Judge Gorsuch thinks of the 14.5 million law-abiding Americans with concealed carry permits?  That they are an immediate and severe danger to the public?

Fortunately, the Framers disagreed, emphasizing in the Second Amendment that an armed populace is not only beneficial to, but indeed "necessary to" the preservation of a "free state."  Unfortunately, in almost all of the countries of the world, the government considers an armed citizen a threat.  But in the United States, the police should consider an armed citizenry one of the sources of strength of the nation.  It is hard to imagine a better way to discourage law-abiding people from carrying guns than to do what the 10th Circuit did, and sanction the police forcibly disarming anyone seen carrying a gun.

At the end of the day, a single opinion such as this is not be enough to derail a Supreme Court nomination, especially since Judge Gorsuch did not even write the opinion.  But he certainly did join the opinion.  And if he is nominated to the High Court, a pro-gun United States senator or two should most certainly inquire as to this decision and ask Judge Gorsuch to explain whether he really believes that the police should be free to treat all armed citizens as though they were dangerous criminals.

 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html#ixzz4XOSXpYOj

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs. Peel, thanks for sharing the article. There is pro and cons to a Judge who goes by written law and not an activist type.  I dont know whats Arizona law on "presumption of license", but my guess is Judge Gorsuch went with the law as written (requiring the CCW to be explicitly licensed). 

 

Edit: Pelosi says Judge Gorsuch is no good. Thats good enough for me to confirm Judge Gorsuch to SCOTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll take my chances. outstanding pick who will rule based on the us constitution. 2a rights are very,very secure with him. now to hope and pray that one or more of the other old folks see their way to the retirement home so we can get hardiman, pryor and sykes as well

 

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/neil-gorsuch-second-amendment-guns-gun-control-nra-concealed-carry-gun-issues-supreme-court-nominee/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure I can get too excited after reading the article that Mrs. Peel provided. This was decided after H&M.I guess we will see more written about this in the coming days. The NRA is strongly endorsing him so we will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing this about Justice Gorsuch , I'm not sure he'll have Federal govt tell the states what to do about guns :

Justin Marceau, a professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, said Gorsuch is “a predictably socially conservative judge who tends to favor state power over federal power.”

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  •  

    alderfer921.jpg

  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • OK, Here we go! I have been into reloading (.. generally, .. successfully, ... still with 19 or so appendages/digits) for about 12 years now. Basically, 9, 38, 40S&W, and 45- 3 types. I do well and am pleased with my results; I stay within guidelines and don't get too creative. I have availed myself of the wealth of info available on the net and in published manuals. ( I give a particular shout out to Cast Boolits) In light of events recently I have modernized/upgraded my equipment and still try to keep it simple; I do like the Lee products for obvious reasons. I also track roughly the number of rounds that I load. ( currently, completed around 15 - 20 thousand rounds, over the course of those 12 years) [.. and still with 19 or so ...] In my modernization I have attempted to concentrate on quality, ... rather than quantity. I have singled out 38 special as it is my favorite caliber and what I shoot the most of. I can regularly build a round that 10 out of 20 will hit the scoring rings of a 25 yard target, at 25 yards, from a sand bag, with the balance still on the 8 1/2 x 11 target paper. If I could shoot free hand like this I would be a Merc!!!!    NOW!! Here we go. I would like to pick the brains of the best out there and start a dialogue possibly about how different aspects of the reloading process effect performance of the round. I really WOULD like to limit the talk to the 38 special and we are talking bullseye type target shooting here at 25 yards. I'm not particularly asking for load data or what you shoot successfully; I am very curious as to whether anyone has any info on some of the more elusive and non published info; how does powder brand/ variation of charge  ( 3.2 grns Bullseye vs. 2.9 grns on a 148 gr. wadcautter)  (crimping in the groove, over the end)  ( HP 38 vs. Universal)  Does the powder brand/charge/crimp effect velocity that will engage the rifling and just HOW! HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE does a CCI primer make as compared to a Remington? Will you get a "fall off" .. wider spread .. "flyer" ...??  For example, I have recently learned that 38 special cases with a double cannulure were manufactured as wad cutter cases! (thinner wall, and interior stop?) When you load a wad cutter in a "heavy" (thicker) Winchester or Remington case, and run it through the factory crimp/sizer you can "feel" it being squished down. This has to effect engagement of the rifling in the barrel? Considering the different burn rates, ignoring what "everyone likes" how do you select a powder for a 125 grain rnfp bullet?  Did anyone ever get this nutso crazy or is it just me?  ..................  Oh! .. and while you are at it, could you solve world hunger, ... and take care of the reloading primer situation!    I personally shoot a S&W 586   6" bbl,    Ruger Match Champion 4' BBl. ,    S&W Mod 67 4" bbl    and a Rossi Mod 52 3" bbl.  From these I draw my data.  I have used new Starline brass, once fired and new Remington and Winchester brass,  plusP nickel brass, and "wad cutter brass" from Winchester, Federal, and Remington. I regularly load X-treme 125 gr rnfp and coated 148 gr wad cutters over Bullseye, 231, HP38, Titegroup, and Universal in the specified load ranges. Have experimented with other bullet brands and weights but no real difference. In my modernization I am also using a Hornady powder trickler and digital scale.    .... PANT, ...PANT, ... PANT!!!!    Done, now!           ..... am I expecting too much ....?                   Thanks, Guys
×
×
  • Create New...