And yet it does not change the facts does it?
He had four chances to vote against gun rights and decided that he would take them all.
Yeah, the guy is a real 2nd amendment stalwart and member of the NRA. AND…that’s why Obama nominated him because Obama wants to put a pro gun Judge on the bench. As I said he wanted to do it in a stealth fashion.
I’m really glad it didn’t work out for him.
Judges are not supposed to rule in favor of “guns” or “vote for gun rights” when those rights are not at issue in a case - they’re supposed to rule in favor of the right interpretation of what the law means. He isn’t supposed to “fix” a statue that burdens gun owners or tip the scales in favor of “guns”. Basic civics.
You advised that Garland was a strong anti-gun judge and that we should study up on him, inferring you had. Neither turned out to be true. Busted again.
I didn’t say he is a Second Amendment stalwart - I merely pointing out that this breathless propaganda is dishonest.
It’s totally honest and true. Garland is anti gun! Every chance he had to decide (4 times) he fell on the side against guns
No more has to be said or proven.
Sure. So judicial activism is bad.
But you’re criticizing Garland for not engaging in judicial activism - you want him to legislate from the bench by taking a look at the dispute and the statute and, even when gun rights are not the issue, decide “hey, I am going to decide in a way that is pro-gun, because guns are cool.”
You really haven’t thought this through, right? Garland is strongly anti-gun, then his track record amounts to “small potatoes”, then he’s strongly anti-gun again, and you decry judicial activism, but then support judicial activism where judges inject their pro-gun biases into cases that have nothing to do with gun rights.
No wonder you’re voting for Trump. You’re as incoherent as he is.
Says the man who thinks Hillary is better for the country in the long-term.
You didn’t have to. But that’s the idea you endorse.
He did? How so? Was he compelled to decide each case to be “pro-gun” even though there were no gun rights being adjudicated?
Seriously. Let’s hear it. Let’s hear why Zeb thought Judge Garland actually got the law wrong in each of these cases. I look forward to your response.
I see.
Tell me, don’t you think it’s odd that on the one topic you claim you base your need to vote for Trump (state of the judiciary), you’re really confused?
Wouldn’t it better to get informed first and then express an opinion?
Just for fun, we can unpack one of the “anti-gun” cases Garland decided. On one such case, a violent criminal committed a series of crimes, including robbery, while brandishing an AK-47 that had the capability of functioning as fully automatic. Federal law mandates that if you commit a robbery with a fully automatic weapon, you get a harsher sentence. Among his other punishments, he got the mandatory 30 years for committing a robbery with an automatic weapon.
He challenged this part of the sentencing on a claim that the government never proved that he knew it was an automatic weapon (it had a selector switch). At issue was whether the statute requires whether the prosecution had to prove he knew it was automatic, or whether it commands strict liability, and knowledge is irrelevant, the mere act itself is punishable.
What followed in the opinion is a super wonky discussion of why mens rea should be applied or not, even though the statute doesn’t say to apply it. Garland said the prosecution didn’t need to prove knowledge or intent. The dissent argued they do, but at no point did “gun rights” come into the picture as a reason to decide one way or the other.
Of course they didn’t. At issue was an automatic weapon (generally illegal, and with the consensus agreeing this should be the case) being used in the commission of a crime. The defendant was not challenging his right to own the AK-47, the court wasn’t deciding that issue.
The decision in this case (and its dissent) was neither “pro-gun” nor “anti-gun” - it was about how to read a criminal statute in terms of mandatory sentencing. Anyone who tries to use this case to claim Garland is “anti-gun” is a lying propagandist.
The only way this is an “anti-gun” case is if you think a judge should have skipped past the technical stuff and imposed a “pro-gun” bias and helped the gun owner here out - in this case, a hardened criminal committing felonies with a machine gun. Idiots.
So, Zeb, stop believing every piece of right-wing trash from Judge Jeanine or whoever that hits your inbox, and certainly stop trying to parrot that nonsense here on PWI as if you know what you’re talking about.
As I said earlier, Garland might be soft on the Second Amendment, but conservatives need to end this practice of spreading misinformation to achieve political ends.
This was a work of art. I am genuinely looking forward to Zeb’s response. (Who wants to bet that he will abandon this line of argument now that you have tainted it with [grimaces in pain] details.)
I bet one whole internet dollar that his response will be something along the lines of:
TB, you used to be a good poster, what happened to you? Perhaps, something personal, maybe a divorce…
At any rate, you’ve been exposed as a die hard Hillary supporter so _______________ (insert more blah blah blah nonsense).
He’ll probably make some lap dog or coming to leaders aide comment now too…
TB was a good poster. Now trashes me. National Enquirer says he is a ketamine addict and his cousins have rabies. Sad!
That resignation letter was outstanding. And I bet it represents what a lot of (at this point, nominal) Republicans are thinking.
Sorry, your response got lost in wherever this thread went.
I still don’t get what shutting down the government would have accomplished. Obama was not going to sign, there was no way to win that stand off. Is that all there is to this whole “they didn’t stand up for anything” idea talk radio has pushed on everybody? Because there are a lot of things they did stand up for.
Yup. It’s sad, but maybe a hard look in the mirror is needed. I for one am only finding I can support Gary Johnson.
I’m with ya on that Drew.
Absolutely outstanding. And in describing the imperative to put limits on our compromise it explicates why I will not support either major party candidate. It further expands on it throughout the letter, but that is the essential starting point.
The only time one can defend one’s principles is when the cost is high. But in order for them to mean anything at all, they must be defended in such a case.
Oh I see oh great omniscient one.
You pass off your half ass opinion for fact for at least the past three years. And…people generally either back down or stay away from you because they don’t want to suffer one of your hissy fits. I on the other hand don’t really care.
Well, finally you tell the truth. It takes you a while but occasionally you come around. Would I rather have Garland who is by your own admission “soft on the second amendment” or would I rather take a chance on a Trump pick? I’ll take the Trump pick as we both know where Obama is coming from. And if he didn’t have that little wink and a nod talk with Garland before he put his name up I’d be surprised. He not only chose him because he was soft on the second amendment but I am just betting (that means its a guess in case you jump all over the place claiming I am saying its a fact) that he had that little talk with Garland.
