Antonin Scalia

[AKElroy]

2016 will be here before we know it. The presidential campaign is already starting, and while we all have our reasons for supporting one side or the other, one point that is the single most motivating factor for me is simply this: Antonin Scalia will be 80 years old when we elect our next president.

I would like to hear from the folks that maintain that it really does not matter which side wins in light of the age of this current 5/4 court. Kennedy will also be 80, and Ginsberg will be 83. The face of the court will change dramatically in the next term, in either direction. This election, more than any in my memory, is critical.

If there are stronger arguments to be made in our efforts to have an effect on motivating the electorate to turn-out for RKBA, lets share them here.

 

[LewSchiller]

Very good points. SCOTUS is absolutely vital to our liberties.
Unfortunately some appointees have turned out to be a disappointment but if the President at that time is a Democrat we can be absolutely certain of what that will look like. At least if the President is a Republican we have a 50/50 chance.

 

[tuj]

(disclaimer: I am of neither party)

The Republicans face a real challenge in trying to win the next election; namely demographics. Simply put, unless Republicans make in-roads with black and Hispanic voters, they are simply going to be out-voted, if not in 2016 then in 2020. The demographic trends of this country are such that whites, who vote more Republican than Democrat on balance, will be a minority of the electorate.

I have heard arguments that Republicans simply need to get more white voter turn-out, and I believe many of the voter ID laws (and in particular getting rid of early voting on Sunday, which is a traditional black voting day) are aimed squarely at trying to suppress as much of the black/Hispanic vote as possible. Studies of voter impersonation suggest that such a crime is infrequent at best, and most likely quite rare. And yet 12% of the voting populace to not possess the necessary identification to vote; of that 12%, it is overwhelmingly blacks and Hispanics.

While I tend to agree largely with the Scalia decision in DC v. Heller, I generally have a lot of disdain for Scalia as he is a strict historical Constructionalist, which quite frankly doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind. I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers, while unable to see the future, intended for the Constitution to evolve with the times, otherwise they would not have included the amendment process. Scalia is an originalist, or at least claims to be, but often times his decisions contradict what he claims is his own Constitutional philosophy. If there's one thing I hate, its inconsistency.

For example, Scalia has written and spoken that he feels the detainment of 'enemy combatants' without the right of Habeus Corpus is justified, while I see nothing in the Constitution nor in the Founding Father intent that would suggest such an opinion. Another example is State's rights, which Scalia is generally a proponent of, however he ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the Federal government had the power to interfere with state's individual laws by virtue of the Commerce clause. Furthermore, Scalia does not agree with Miranda, which is honestly boggling to my mind; I firmly believe that police have a duty to inform you of your Constitutional rights when you are arrested, but clearly Scalia does not.

Obviously others will disagree with me, and view Scalia as the preeminent conservative on the court, which of course he is.

It would be best if we could find SCOTUS judges who are not biased towards one party affiliation or another, and simply interpret the law to the best of their abilities. Of course that raises many questions on what type of Constructionalist is ideal for the court, be it strict or 'evolving'.

As far as the 2A goes in advancing and promoting it, I think the NRA has done a great deal of damage by constantly suggesting that the 2A is under attack in some form or another, when often times those so-called 'assaults' will never become law (for example, the UN treaty stuff). The NRA continually cries 'wolf' in order to get more money, regardless of the 2A legal environment at the time. Personally, I would rather see the NRA focus more on sportsmanship, competition, and safety, promoting responsible gun ownership rather than the militant stance they tend to take now against anything and everything gun-related.

(And yes, I am a reluctant member of the NRA)

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm not sure what tuj's thoughts on Republican prospects or how much he doesn't like the NRA have to do with your question; but the probability is very high that two of the Heller majority will be replaced in the 2016-2020 timeframe.

As it stands right now, the Second Amendment right is only a right to own a handgun in your home for self-defense purposes and it applies against the states as well. There is no right to any certain magazine size. There is no right to own a semi-auto. There is no right to own a firearm without complying with something like D.C.'s expensive and Byzantine permit and training process (so well documented by Emily Miller).

Even if the Supreme Court answers some of these questions before 2016, they are extremely unlikely to do anything more than narrowly address two or three issues.

So far every single prospective Democratic nominee and several of the Republican nominees have shown by their past actions that they will nominate anti-Heller Justices. Realistically, a Democrat or a Republican is going to win in 2016.

So if we don't want Heller to be extremely limited (and that is a best case scenario - 3 sitting Justices indicated in McDonald that they would overturn Heller and while Kagan has not yet ruled,she is far from solid), we need to make sure a pro-2A candidate wins one or both primaries and give them a Senate that will support the nominations. On the Democrat side, that means a LOT of work to find a candidate and enough funding to overcome the Clinton and Biden machines. To put it bluntly, the chances that a candidate arises and pulls this off from relative obscurity in 2013 are very small.

On the Republican side, we know we are going to have some strong pro-2A choices; but many of them will carry some baggage of their own as far as supporting Big Government power in other areas.

None of them will go anywhere unless people get involved early and fight like their Second Amendment rights depend on it; because they absolutely do.

 

[RussellC]

I'm not sure what tuj's thoughts on Republican prospects or how much he doesn't like the NRA have to do with your question; but the probability is very high that two of the Heller majority will be replaced in the 2016-2020 timeframe.

As it stands right now, the Second Amendment right is only a right to own a handgun in your home for self-defense purposes and it applies against the states as well. There is no right to any certain magazine size. There is no right to own a semi-auto. There is no right to own a firearm without complying with something like D.C.'s expensive and Byzantine permit and training process (so well documented by Emily Miller).

Even if the Supreme Court answers some of these questions before 2016, they are extremely unlikely to do anything more than narrowly address two or three issues.

So far every single prospective Democratic nominee and several of the Republican nominees have shown by their past actions that they will nominate anti-Heller Justices. Realistically, a Democrat or a Republican is going to win in 2016.

So if we don't want Heller to be extremely limited (and that is a best case scenario - 3 sitting Justices indicated in McDonald that they would overturn Heller and while Kagan has not yet ruled,she is far from solid), we need to make sure a pro-2A candidate wins one or both primaries and give them a Senate that will support the nominations. On the Democrat side, that means a LOT of work to find a candidate and enough funding to overcome the Clinton and Biden machines. To put it bluntly, the chances that a candidate arises and pulls this off from relative obscurity in 2013 are very small.

On the Republican side, we know we are going to have some strong pro-2A choices; but many of them will carry some baggage of their own as far as supporting Big Government power in other areas.

None of them will go anywhere unless people get involved early and fight like their Second Amendment rights depend on it; because they absolutely do.

Looks bad, but maybe a little better looking is the fact that Obama's win took historically major republican states...the first election...when he took California and Florida I just about fell out of my chair! What happened was that dyed in the wool republicans flipped and voted democratic. Hopefully, now that the "fed up with Bush" is history, most of these repubs, seeing the holy mess that came from bringing Obama to office, will return to their regularly scheduled voting patterns....I hope!

russellc

 

[AKElroy]

TUJ, your post is a pretty standard overview of prevailing thought in establishment republican circles. I respectfully reject nearly all of it. At some point, facts must intervene. Immigration reform proposed by chuck shumer in his effort to "save republicans from embarrassing themselves" in national elections is not going to win Hispanics for the republican cause. Just the opposite. First, the issue itself polls very low in the Hispanic community. those here legally resent others cutting in line, while those here illegally object to having to compete with actual citizens on a level playing field, paying taxes and all else that comes with it.

Secondly, the strategy brilliantly employed by Shumer was to create a scenario where republicans would fight over the issue while the united, embracing Democrats get to sit back, the image of civility, pointing out how racist and divided the opposition caucus has become.

As for voter ID, it is simply preposterous that we do not ask voters to prove who they say they are. This is also an issue that polls in the 90's when the question is plainly asked, "should voters prove they are eligible in order to cast a ballot", even in the African American community it polls high when asked this way. Of course, outcome-polling does not ask it that way. Rather, we get "don't you think it is wrong for republicans to exclude 10% of legal voters from the polls, particularly when the majority of these are African American? When you load it that way, you get a vastly inaccurate result. As for fraudulent imposter voting not being widely reported, HOW COULD IT? We don't ask them to prove who they are. Without requiring the ID, it is a completely undetectable crime. The notion that it does not widely occur is just plain silly. The fact that the opposition is so vocally opposed, I suspect they have a good guess on the number of fraudulent votes they are benefitting from.

Secondly, 3.6 million evangelical Christians that voted for McCain in 2008 stayed home in 2012. We would have easily won this election with a decent candidate. The republican candidate in 2012, with his positions that frankly were the perfect match for your suggestions, lost this group due to a lack of perceived CONVICTION, and to a lesser but not insignificant amount, his mormon faith. A principled candidate with a background to confirm a principled stance would have faired far better.

All that said, what I am certain of is this: the next president very likely gets 3 justices to appoint. I will be ringing that bell loudly to ensure those 3.6 million don't stay home next time around.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And straight politics is off topic here.