GOP Platform: A Better Way

[thunderbolt23]

@zeb1

Here’s another one for you if you care to read it

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

Now you should like the National Review they, like you, hate Donald Trump.

I’m not interested in more post-hoc internet searches on Garland - I’m interested in you backing your own words. It’s not complicated. I realize today has been tough on you, but here’s your chance to just simply and honestly address the integrity of your own words.

[countingbeans]

@zeb1

how do you know there will continue to be a republican majority?

Because Bam brought about the most epic midterm land slides in recent, if not all of, American history, and she isn’t nearly as well liked lol.

[countingbeans]

@thunderbolt23

How did he get it wrong in the case I discussed above

Can you re-link… I’m too lazy to fish and want to catch up on this convo

Thanks

[thunderbolt23]

@thunderbolt23

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.

Here you go, @countingbeans.

[zeb1]

@thunderbolt23

I’m not interested in more post-hoc internet searches on Garland - I’m interested in you backing your own words. It’s not complicated. I realize today has been tough on you, but here’s your chance to just simply and honestly address the integrity of your own words.

LOL…fighting with you (or anyone) on the Internet is not what I would call tough. If you think it is you’ve lead a pampered life (which would not surprise me). I am not going to debate the finer points of a legal case that’s not what I call fun. If you want to make a case that Garland is pro gun you have an uphill battle. I have read many different things on Garland from many different sources and not one of them demonstrates to me that he’s pro gun.

Now you only have 18 minutes left.

[zeb1]

Thanks for reposting.

But what does that prove?

Care to unravel the other three cases? You will find that they are in nature quite a bit different.

[zeb1]

14 minutes left so get to it

[zeb1]

Your argument is like saying that the defendant only broke into 3 houses not 4 therefore he’s not really a burglar

[zeb1]

Well come on counsel you have about 12 minutes to prove your case

[thunderbolt23]

@zeb1

Thanks for reposting.

But what does that prove?

Care to unravel the other three cases? You will find that they are in nature quite a bit different.

Uh, already addressed them, and you didn’t have an answer on those either: one was the case where Garland deferred to the interpretation of the DOJ on when to destroy records after gun sales (exercising judicial restraint) and another was when he voted for full panel review of Heller at the circuit level (and so did a Republican appointee). You didn’t address those either.

[zeb1]

@countingbeans

Because Bam brought about the most epic midterm land slides in recent, if not all of, American history, and she isn’t nearly as well liked lol

Well, fortunately for us she will not be winning in November so we won’t have to worry about it.

Do you see it taking shape yet Beans?

[countingbeans]

@zeb1

Well, fortunately for us she will not be winning in November so we won’t have to worry about it.

About the only way I see Hillary NOT winning is Johnson wins a key state or two and no one reaches the required electoral votes, and the house picks Ryan.

Would not be a disaster IMO.

But it would end the electoral collage in about 6 weeks.

This however, is my pipe dream.

Reality I’m think Hilldawg wins in the third largest landslide in election history. And we have to suffer “butz herz mandatez” for four long obnoxious years. She’ll pack SCOTUS with gun hating fascists and shit is going to hit the fan… Hard.

[zeb1]

Okay TB you must be lost one of those left wing web sites…LOL. Smile man you take this stuff way too seriously. I’m going out to have a some dinner if you decide to respond I might take a look at it before I hit the sack. If not there is always tomorrow or Thursday.

[zeb1]

@countingbeans

Reality I’m think Hilldawg wins in the third largest landslide in election history. And we have to suffer “butz herz mandatez” for four long obnoxious years. She’ll pack SCOTUS with gun hating fascists and shit is going to hit the fan… Hard.

Well, I think you might be underestimating Jill Stein and how she will be pulling many Bernie Supporters. You also might not be giving credit to blue collar democrats who have had enough of Hillary and her corrupt ways.

Sure I could be wrong but I don’t think she can pull it off even though electorally it is easier for a democrat to win the White House than a republican.

[Alrightmiami19c]

@Drew1411

Because there are a lot of things they did stand up for.

Horseshit. There are a handful of people in congress willing to risk their career to do what is right. People who are willing to fight to preserve liberty. What have the Republicans stood up for? They can’t even get extra Zika funding because the Democrats are blackmailing them for Planned Parenthood. Even when they are in charge they govern like a bunch of nutless wonders.

[countingbeans]

@zeb1

Well, I think you might be underestimating Jill Stein and how she will be pulling many Bernie Supporters. You also might not be giving credit to blue collar democrats who have had enough of Hillary and her corrupt ways.

I had Romney all wrong in 2012 so who knows.

I do know that so few people even know the difference between a republic and democracy that I think you’re giving too much credit to the average voter re: sick of hill’s shit.

[Aragorn]

@thunderbolt23

Rove–he’s incredibly bright and an enormous history buff.

I find most people who are great strategists (in any field) tend to be history buffs. Also most great non-fiscal leaders.

[Aragorn]

@thunderbolt23

From reading the opinion itself.

Lawyers are funny that way…go to the source

@zeb1

It is clear he got it wrong four times

What specifically did he get wrong about mens rea? What, specifically, did he get wrong about the other 3 cases? Why was judicial restraint, a classic conservative judge trait, not the correct move in the DOJ case? Why did full panel review miss the mark and what should the decision have been?

[anon50325502]

@zeb1

But what you are missing is the fact that Hillary will most assuredly stack the court with left wing judges. And that changes things for a generation!

A Republican majority Senate can block her left wing choices and be seen as hero’s to the party, but they cannot do that under a President Trump.

@zeb1

how do you know there will continue to be a republican majority?

I don’t know, for a fact, of course.

@zeb1

But all I see is you bashing Trump and all that does is help Hillary who in my opinion would be worse than Trump.

Again, this is because Republican primary voters here were still undecided about who to nominate and I used this venue to push any other candidate for the GOP nomination. Who the Dems nominated during the primary season meant absolutely nothing to me as a former member of the GOP.

@countingbeans

Because Bam brought about the most epic midterm land slides in recent, if not all of, American history, and she isn’t nearly as well liked lol.

Agreed

@countingbeans

Reality I’m think Hilldawg wins in the third largest landslide in election history.

Agreed.

@Aragorn

What specifically did he get wrong about mens rea? What, specifically, did he get wrong about the other 3 cases? Why was judicial restraint, a classic conservative judge trait, not the correct move in the DOJ case? Why did full panel review miss the mark and what should the decision have been?

Would love to hear the answer here too.

[smh_23]

@thunderbolt23

@zeb1

Back to the Garland issue, where did you get your information regarding his ruling on the case you sited?

From reading the opinion itself.

This was a great one because it didn’t even seem to occur to him that one can consult decisions directly. “Who broke this up into little chewable bites and spoon-fed it to you while singing open wide for the airplane!?”