9th circuit nominee
Trump has nominated someone who is anti-gun and anti-free speech. Sad.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 12th, 2018 at 10:36 pm
Can we but hope this was a throw away nomination to create the appearance of bipartisanship and moderation, with the full knowledge that the nomination would be eagerly brought to a vote and then voted down?
Seriously, this guy on the 9th circuit is a threat to my civil rights.
April 12th, 2018 at 11:01 pm
We can hope, Tirno, but this isn’t the first bad judicial appointment Trump has made based on cronyism — friends of his White House attorneys. Who are the ones actually doing the nominating — Trump, himself, having no clue, nor any inclination to get one, about the resumes and position of “his” nominees.
April 12th, 2018 at 11:17 pm
Yep, what Niko said.
April 13th, 2018 at 12:58 am
Damn it.
April 14th, 2018 at 3:28 am
This nominee quoted Ted Cruz’s amicus brief for Heller that said “reasonable gun control like California and New York has should be found constitutional.” You can smell the stank on a globalist.
April 14th, 2018 at 10:14 am
I find that hard to believe, Erik.
April 14th, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Here’s Cruz’s amicus brief in Heller. https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Heller_Amicus_Brief.pdf
April 15th, 2018 at 11:08 pm
Erik:
Can you provide the specific location of the odd quote you cited? Because what I found on page 33 seems very different.
The Unreasonableness of the District’s Statutory Scheme Is Further Evidenced by the Fact That It Runs Counter to the Regulatory Approach of All Fifty States.
To the extent the Court looks beyond the standard adopted by the court of appeals or those suggested by the United States, the unreasonable nature of the D.C. Code provisions is also evident when compared to the statutory approach of the fifty States.
The Legislatures of all fifty States are united in their rejection of bans on private handgun ownership. Every State in the Union permits private citizens to own handguns.13 Forty-fiveStatesgofurther,allowingprivate citizens to carry concealed handguns for self-defense.14 Thus, the District’s sweeping firearm prohibitions are not only contrary to the Constitution, but also contrary to the
13. See APPENDIX. 14. See APPENDIX.

34
reasoned judgment of every state legislature in the Nation.
Indeed, for that reason, this diverse coalition of 31 amici States is of one accord that—under any standard—the District of Columbia’s categorical ban cannot be sustained.
April 16th, 2018 at 10:59 am
The pdf of the amicus brief I linked in my comment 7 is searchable with CTRL F. California and New York appear only in the Appendix cited by Brad in his comment 8.
My guess is that it’s the other way around and it was Cruz reading from Bennett’s amicus brief in opposition to Heller. If there is one thing Cruz is not soft on, it’s the Second Amendment.
April 16th, 2018 at 12:58 pm
@nk, that is the correct version of that quote.
The Teds Cruz and Nuge are alike in that, and also in that I don’t like either of them much.
April 16th, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Oh, and obviously DT doesn’t make these choices personally, but yeah they’re his nominees.
Betting this one gets yanked. And I only bet on sure things.