Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by threetango, Apr 7, 2016.
Read it. Garland probably is a moderate - a moderate left-winger. If the sum of his convictions were placed on a scale, with far left wingnut at one end and far right wingnut on the other, He would, I think, be positioned about here:
L - - - - - - - - - - - -Garland- -CTR- - - - - - - - - - - - - -R.
There must be people whose 'sums' would put them to right of center, who fear guns in anyone's possession, not benefiting from rational thought. The details of anti gun-ownership and pro gun-ownership arguments are legitimate in our society. The elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment; the antis can't ignore it, they have to repeal it. Or, as Buster suggests, they can trash the Constitution altogether.
His 2nd Amendment 'conviction' is dangerous for the wellbeing of SCOTUS precisely because it contradicts the clear language of the Constitution - which is the document SCOTUS was created to protect.
I would pretty much bet if Obama nominated him for SCOTUS then he would not be basically good for adhering to the Constitution's plain language. Who Garland socializes with might be a tell tale what club he belongs to. What's the scoop VT?
If push comes to shove when American citizens have the government going against them they will find they no longer have the Bill of Rights. The only hope we have is if the masses will stand up in defiance against the government subjugation. That could happen when/if the SHTF.
What we see going on in other countries is mostly because the people have been disarmed. The 2nd is all that has kept it from happening here so far.
People are very possibly going to wake up to the fact the two parties are actually one for all and all for one because the powers that be control all the puppets. The people are no longer invited to the party and can only attend the party as servants.
Hah. I dunno who he associates with, except that it ain't me. I have a strong suspicion he thinks of himself as a centrist and that the Constitution must be 'interpreted' without prejudice for/against left or right, but with regard for enlightened modern values.
That ain't right; the Constitution is what it is, says what it says. If there is sufficient agreement on what those enlightened modern values are, the Constitution can be amended to reflect them.