Kavanaugh to Feinstein: AR-15s in ‘Common Use’ Because ‘Widely Possessed’

[speedkills27]

when she knew she was outgunned intellectually she goes right to the emotional response card. "how do you reconcile what you just said with the hundreds of schools shooting?" WEEEEELLLLLLL Diane, first off there aren't hundreds of school shootings using rifles. The largest school shooting, Virginia tech, was done with one of the most popular handguns on the planet. I can appreciate @Mosinitis sentiment wanting the nominee to tear idiots like this apart, but that's just not how these things go. The nominees give vanilla, straight up the middle answers as to not rock the boat more than necessary

 

[Mosinitis]

I don't care what he said during hearings. I don't care if he rips her apart or kisses her ass. I was addressing what was misrepresented by OP.
Stop misrepresenting these political cronies as defenders of the 2nd amendment until they get something done. Stop being ass wipes of political parties. There is a republican chosen majority on the Supreme Court for over a decade and they do nothing to defend us against gun bans. NOTHING.
By kissing their rear ends before anything is done you are a part of the problem. He is already getting the benefit of our votes by getting appointed. He owes us, we owe him nothing.

 

[Mosinitis]

Note how they can't argue with my point, so they need to misrepresent my position and put words in my mouth.

 

[Mosinitis]

Oh give me a break. If you’re only going to be happy with a Supreme Court Justice who goes through the nominating process screaming MOLON LABE at senators, somehow gets confirmed, and then sits on the court and rules exactly the way you want all the time, you would probably be better off digging spider holes and starting your insurgency now, because it ain’t never gonna be that way.

Yeah right, I am extreme for demanding promises made should be promises kept and apologists like you are great for the 2nd amendment. Please list what your kind has accomplished.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Judges are not legislators nor should they be.

 

[Mosinitis]

Judges are not legislators nor should they be.

If judges weren't corrupt and interpreted Constitution we wouldn't have this discussion.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Oh give me a break. If you’re only going to be happy with a Supreme Court Justice who goes through the nominating process screaming MOLON LABE at senators, somehow gets confirmed, and then sits on the court and rules exactly the way you want all the time, you would probably be better off digging spider holes and starting your insurgency now, because it ain’t never gonna be that way.

But they are supposed to rule like I want whether they are liberal or conservative. They are supposed to rule on the Constitution as written without any bias.

Not this circus of 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 splits. There should never be a split. It's either constitutional or not. Period. Anything other then unanimous is nonsense.

The amendments are written in plain English.

 

[BDinPutnam]

@Willjr75 you might want to back out of the BoR and read the Constitution itself with respect to the roles and responsibilties of the three branches.

SCOTUS does not have the sole job of enforcing the Bill of Rights, and by design it sure as hell wasn't created to ensure majority, unelected rule.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Willjr75 you might want to back out of the BoR and read the Constitution itself with respect to the roles and responsibilties of the three branches.

SCOTUS does not have the sole job of enforcing the Bill of Rights, and by design it sure as hell wasn't created to ensure majority, unelected rule.

I'm aware that they are the final judges for all Congressional laws. Even those that aren't constitutional related but when it comes to the Constitution, it's black or white.

A soldier cannot be quartered in your home without consent during peacetime or the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed isn't something that needs interpreting.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I don't mean to be obtuse but you missed my point.

The Constitution is not the Bill of Rights, nor vice versa.

By design.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't mean to be obtuse but you missed my point.

The Constitution is not the Bill of Rights, nor vice versa.

By design.

Yeah. It's going over my head. I'm not understanding.

 

[masterswimmer]

The entire purpose of these confirmation hearings are for the opposing party to try everything in their power to get the nominee to commit him/her self to having an opinion or bias that will unequivocally state how the nominee will rule in a 'what if' scenario.

Conversely, the nominee needs to display restraint and composure in sitting on the fence to show they are prepared to listen to facts, hear a case based on its own merits, and ultimately rule without any preconceived bias. Displaying any form of commitment one way or the other during these hearings is akin to confirmation suicide.

You may not like the fact that the nominee comes across as wishy washy, but doing it any other way just isn't going to get the confirmation. Ultimately they would like to get both sides of the aisle to confirm. 60 votes used to be the requirement. The nuclear option only recently made the requirement the majority. The problem with that is the aisle is split 51-49. With the deep state swamp wavering to level it even more it requires the nominee to implicitly come across as unbiased and as close to middle of the road as humanly possible.

 

[libertysnake]

But they are supposed to rule like I want whether they are liberal or conservative. They are supposed to rule on the Constitution as written without any bias.

Not this circus of 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 splits. There should never be a split. It's either constitutional or not. Period. Anything other then unanimous is nonsense.

The amendments are written in plain English.

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was assuming judges wouldn't just be politicians as well.

We see it in the SCOTUS, and we see it every time "federal judge" blocks some sort of order Trump puts out. They're just politicians who can act unilaterally.

I say, put everything to a vote. We have the technology to do so. No more fuckery.

 

[Twogunwilly]

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was assuming judges wouldn't just be politicians as well.

We see it in the SCOTUS, and we see it every time "federal judge" blocks some sort of order Trump puts out. They're just politicians who can act unilaterally.

I say, put everything to a vote. We have the technology to do so. No more fuckery.

Everything can not be brought to a vote, mob rule is not how our country rolls.

 

[masterswimmer]

Everything can not be brought to a vote, mob rule is not how our country rolls.

Tell that to the Soros fund ANTIFA

 

[Grimscale]

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was assuming judges wouldn't just be politicians as well.

We see it in the SCOTUS, and we see it every time "federal judge" blocks some sort of order Trump puts out. They're just politicians who can act unilaterally.

I say, put everything to a vote. We have the technology to do so. No more fuckery.

It's not a vote we need. It's repercussions to deliberate attempts to circumvent the Constitution, BoR, and Rule of Law that we need.
We need more judicial investigations, more removals from the bench, and more than a slap on the hand for both politicians and the judges who support them in infringing on the Rights of Law abiding Americans.

 

[Mosinitis]

I don't mean to be obtuse but you missed my point.

The Constitution is not the Bill of Rights, nor vice versa.

By design.

Bill of Rights and every subsequent amendment is a part of U.S. Constitution.

 

[Mosinitis]

The entire purpose of these confirmation hearings are for the opposing party to try everything in their power to get the nominee to commit him/her self to having an opinion or bias that will unequivocally state how the nominee will rule in a 'what if' scenario.

Conversely, the nominee needs to display restraint and composure in sitting on the fence to show they are prepared to listen to facts, hear a case based on its own merits, and ultimately rule without any preconceived bias. Displaying any form of commitment one way or the other during these hearings is akin to confirmation suicide.

You may not like the fact that the nominee comes across as wishy washy, but doing it any other way just isn't going to get the confirmation. Ultimately they would like to get both sides of the aisle to confirm. 60 votes used to be the requirement. The nuclear option only recently made the requirement the majority. The problem with that is the aisle is split 51-49. With the deep state swamp wavering to level it even more it requires the nominee to implicitly come across as unbiased and as close to middle of the road as humanly possible.

Confirmation hearings are opportunity for politicians to grandstand and score points with their base. The deal was already made. Unless something criminal comes out from his past, he is in. The stories fed to peasantry are not how the ruling class operates.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Bill of Rights and every subsequent amendment is a part of U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court does not ONLY handle Bill of Rights issues.

That was my point.