George Bush: Not a friend to gun owners
I said it before and it continues to be true. A VPC propaganda release:
In his opinion, Judge Walton, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, wrote: “[T]he Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias.”
Now George, since you had your administration file documents stating the Second Amendment confers an individual right, you may want to step in and do something about this. Or at least give Walton a talking to. Saying one thing and lending support to another is rather appalling.
January 16th, 2004 at 1:18 pm
Judges have a long tradition of taking ideological position that are far to the left of whoever appointed them. Past examples have included the likes of Justices Warren, Brennan and Blackmun. On today’s cour, Justices Souter and Stevens clearly fit that profile, and Justice O’Connor seems to be headed that direction as well. This Walton chump fits that pattern to a tee; if anything, it should be less of a surprise since he is only a district court judge, making the level of scrutiny very low. [It also makes Wednesday’s ruling relatively harmless, BTW, as lower court rulings on matters of law are reviewed de novo on appeal.]
Democrats, by contrast, seem to be very good at selecting judicial appointees who can be trusted to toe their line. The last counter-example I can think of was Justice Byron White, a Kennedy appointee.
January 16th, 2004 at 3:21 pm
Once the judge has been appointed and confirmed, there’s nothing the President can do to undo that. Maybe you think he should have chosen more wisely, but the President can’t be held directly responsible if one of his appointees changes his mind.
Now, if it’s a pattern among most of his appointees, then that’s something for which you can hold the President (and Congress) accountable.
I still think we need to amend the constitution to require a 2/3 majority to confirm justices. That would force whichever party is in power to nominate candidates that both parties could live with.
January 16th, 2004 at 3:24 pm
But he can publicly say that’s a bad kitty!
January 16th, 2004 at 5:28 pm
Forget who said it, but:
“The quickest way to get a man to switch parties is to make him a Justice of the Supreme Court.”
January 16th, 2004 at 7:12 pm
Re: “bad kitty,” IIRC Eisenhower once said something similar. When asked at the end of his Presidency if he had ever made any mistakes, he said “yes, and two of them are sitting up there on the Supreme Court.”
January 16th, 2004 at 7:18 pm
>I still think we need to amend the constitution
>to require a 2/3 majority to confirm justices.
>That would force whichever party is in power to
>nominate candidates that both parties could live
>with.
Previous experience suggests that things which “both parties could live with” ought to be avoided like the plague.
January 20th, 2004 at 4:34 pm
Stormy:
Previous experience suggests that things which “both parties could live with” ought to be avoided like the plague.
Perhaps so, but as compared to things that only one party can live with?