You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring-Kavanaugh Nominated
- Thread starter motorhead0922
- Start date
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
Lee would be good, but I can't see throwing away a senate vote for confirmation on the off chance that his being a Senator would incline some otherwise-hostile Democrats to vote for him out of collegiality. Time will tell. This looks to be as nasty a confirmation process as Bork and Thomas!
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I just hope whoever the next nominee is, that person:
1) Shares my vision of the 2A
2) Is from outside the inbred Ivy League mafia
3) Has many decades ahead
USA Today had a good opinion piece advocating for Don Willett, who ticks all of those boxes. His confirmation to 5th Circuit was fairly partisan in 2017 though, so it would probably be the same story again.
1) Shares my vision of the 2A
2) Is from outside the inbred Ivy League mafia
3) Has many decades ahead
USA Today had a good opinion piece advocating for Don Willett, who ticks all of those boxes. His confirmation to 5th Circuit was fairly partisan in 2017 though, so it would probably be the same story again.
Bartholomew Roberts said:USA Today had a good opinion piece advocating for Don Willett, who ticks all of those boxes. His confirmation to 5th Circuit was fairly partisan in 2017 though, so it would probably be the same story again.
I haven't seen an MSM piece advocating for a "conservative" candidate, I'll be interested to read it. I followed Don Willett on Twitter some years ago... he was genuinely funny. Some of his posts were about taking his kids to the shooting range.
USA Today had a good opinion piece advocating for Don Willett, who ticks all of those boxes.
Doubtful. He got in a twitter war with the president. As much as Trump loves twitter doubt he will forget that.
Lee would be good, but I can't see throwing away a senate vote for confirmation on the off chance that his being a Senator would incline some otherwise-hostile Democrats to vote for him out of collegiality.
It's Utah, so he'd be replaced with a Republican in the short term, and most likely in the long term as well. Even if we assume losing his seat, he may be more valuable to us as a Justice in the long term.
As for the Bork and Thomas references...I suspect this is going to be uglier. So much uglier. I'd say we'll someday look back at this period in our political history with shame, but that assumes this is just a temporary situation.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
These are reportedly the top five potential nominees:
Hardiman is a solid pick on the Second and was a strong contender during the Gorsuch nomination as well. He ticks all the Willet criteria too.
Brett Kavanaugh, 53, of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — widely respected and very much on Trump’s radar.
Thomas Hardiman, 52, of Pennsylvania, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — good chemistry with Trump and White House Counsel Don McGahn. They respect him and like the way he engaged in the process last time, even though he wasn't picked.
Amy Coney Barrett, 46, of Indiana, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Amul Thapar, 49, of Kentucky, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — on the shortlist largely as a courtesy to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Raymond Kethledge, 51, of Michigan, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hardiman is a solid pick on the Second and was a strong contender during the Gorsuch nomination as well. He ticks all the Willet criteria too.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Barrett is the youngest of the bunch, and a female on top of that (which might swing one or two senators her way). How much of an originalist/strict constructionist is she, and what's her position on the second Amendment?
Hmmm ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
She clerked for Scalia. She's a member of The Federalist Society. But ... that People of Praise business makes me question what otherwise look to be stellar qualifications. It's hard to reconcile that with being a good Catholic, but not all professed Catholics (or Christians, or whatever) are good Cathlics (or Christians, or whatever).
Hmmm ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
She clerked for Scalia. She's a member of The Federalist Society. But ... that People of Praise business makes me question what otherwise look to be stellar qualifications. It's hard to reconcile that with being a good Catholic, but not all professed Catholics (or Christians, or whatever) are good Cathlics (or Christians, or whatever).
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Kavanaugh authored a pro-2A dissent againt an assault weapons ban in the D.C. Circuit. On the other hand, he is an Ivy leaguer who has been square in the middle of both the Clinton impeachment effort and the GWB recount.
Several people here have pointed fingers at Kennedy for not accepting cert on several important 2A cases. My fear is that Kennedy isn’t the problem, Roberts is. I worry Kavanaugh is a bit too close to the GOP. He’ll be a solid pro-2A justice, but I think he might haul up well short of what many of us here see as the scope of the Second.
Several people here have pointed fingers at Kennedy for not accepting cert on several important 2A cases. My fear is that Kennedy isn’t the problem, Roberts is. I worry Kavanaugh is a bit too close to the GOP. He’ll be a solid pro-2A justice, but I think he might haul up well short of what many of us here see as the scope of the Second.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
If he comes up short of what many of us see as the scope of the Second Amendment, then he really isn't a "solid pro-2A" candidate, is he? The 2A says what it says, and if one is intellectually honest there just isn't a lot of wiggle room in that language. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Bartholomew Roberts said:He’ll be a solid pro-2A justice, but I think he might haul up well short of what many of us here see as the scope of the Second.
We really don't care in this discussion if we have a right wing or left wing majority. We care about the gun rights implications. Wandering from that and we close this one.
Plus 1911. As 2A supporters, everything has to be 2A first. We need to drop this idea that right wing equals 2A. The has been a short term phenomenon.
Tom Servo said:I'm a bit disappointed not to see Diane Sykes on the shortlist. She was the author of the Ezell opinion, and solidly in our corner.
I was thinking about her as well. About as good a candidate as we could hope for, but she'll be 61 this year. If she retired in 5-10 years, it would not be a huge surprise, and that seems like a big issue given how important each seat is, and the apparent availability of quality candidates who are a decade younger.
We really don't care in this discussion if we have a right wing or left wing majority. We care about the gun rights implications. Wandering from that and we close this one.
While I agree in principle that we, at the Firing Line, do have a specific focus on the second amendment, I would be remiss if I did not remind everyone that THIS particular sub-forum was designed to be able to discuss the broader implications of all civil rights, and the laws that affect those rights.
In discussing who we might like to see as a judicial nominee to replace Justice Kennedy, we necessarily must look to a broad range of decisions a perspective appointment might have. Their Judicial philosophy, if you will.
From the short list of five, I submit that Hardiman may be the best pick. Several pundits hold that the list should be a choice between Hardiman and Barrett. I would submit that Barrett is too new to the judiciary for us to form an opinion on her judicial philosophy.
Which leaves Hardiman.
Outside of the short list, I might agree with several that, Senator Mike Lee of Utah may be a good overall pick. However, I would propose that his brother, Thomas Lee (Utah Supreme Court Justice, and also on the list) would be the better pick.
Like the late Justice Scalia, Lee is an originalist and he has been a prolific writer of opinions; majority, concurance or dissent. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. Like Justice Thomas, Lee is not adverse to overturning stare decisis if he views the precedent to be contrary to original meaning.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
If he comes up short of what many of us see as the scope of the Second Amendment, then he really isn't a "solid pro-2A" candidate, is he?
Well, he might not support your right to mount Mk19s on the bass boat, get your letter of marque and go privateering (then again he might for all I know); but he appears to believe the Second Amendment forbids assault weapon bans, so that’s something.
Lucas McCain
New member
I want a SC justice who interperates the law and don’t attempt to rewrite it. Period. I also want a justice that is not politically motivated or influenced. They should be impartial in their judgement. Period.
But there is no chance of that happening because the citizens of this country, along with the politicians of America are so intensely divided and partisan, which makes it impossible for that to happen.
Read the comments above. Trying to “stack the deck” not trusting fellow justices should not be a requirement to get a impartial, fair and just decision. But today’s conditions, philosophy and values require less than prudent actions to achieve the goal. That is a sad situation for the highest court in the land.
I believe in the separation of power which enables the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government to work. But that can’t happen when one dictates the policies.
The RKBA issue would have been resolved decades ago if scotus would have been loyal to the constitution, and not political influence. And the deterioration of Free Republic is going to continue because there is no turning back now.
But there is no chance of that happening because the citizens of this country, along with the politicians of America are so intensely divided and partisan, which makes it impossible for that to happen.
Read the comments above. Trying to “stack the deck” not trusting fellow justices should not be a requirement to get a impartial, fair and just decision. But today’s conditions, philosophy and values require less than prudent actions to achieve the goal. That is a sad situation for the highest court in the land.
I believe in the separation of power which enables the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government to work. But that can’t happen when one dictates the policies.
The RKBA issue would have been resolved decades ago if scotus would have been loyal to the constitution, and not political influence. And the deterioration of Free Republic is going to continue because there is no turning back now.
From the short list of five, I submit that Hardiman may be the best pick. Several pundits hold that the list should be a choice between Hardiman and Barrett. I would submit that Barrett is too new to the judiciary for us to form an opinion on her judicial philosophy.
Which leaves Hardiman.
Women's issues are big right now. I'd surprised if he does not pick a woman.
Picking Thapar would be a first for the bench among Indian-Americans. Hard to say what POTUS will do, although some choices are clearly better than others.
Yes, Thomas Lee would also be a good choice.
If judges can find ways to destroy a part of the constitution, then nothing is safe. If a nominee who can stand up for the 2nd amendment in today's politically, charged climate, then I feel pretty confident that they will stand up for the rest of it as written without today's extreme influences used as a filter.
The 2A is my main concern because it is the barricade that keeps those with influence from taking the rest of our rights of privacy and freedom.
The 2A is my main concern because it is the barricade that keeps those with influence from taking the rest of our rights of privacy and freedom.
While I see what you are getting at by not letting party affiliation blind you by the real issue of the 2nd amendment, I can't think of anyone on the federal level in the last 30 years that was left wing and for gun rights. The younger demographic has started to take a swing for right wing leaning libertarian mindset. When it comes to the SCOTUS when you have a former justice saying "we need to repeal the 2nd amendment" I say bring in the most conservative right wing gun rights judge you can find to keep the status quo of gun rights in our favor for a while longer.Plus 1911. As 2A supporters, everything has to be 2A first. We need to drop this idea that right wing equals 2A. The has been a short term phenomenon.
There have been some, but the problem lies with their party narrative and pressure to conform. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, many of the newcomers were moderates called Blue Dogs. One of their common traits was that they were sometimes pro-gun and rarely anti-gun. Some of those folks lost their seats in the 2010 midterms, but the remainder changed their tune on the issue.I can't think of anyone on the federal level in the last 30 years that was left wing and for gun rights.
One notable case is Kristen Gillibrand, Senator from New York. She ran on her A rating from the NRA, and Dianne Feinstein was none too happy about that. Feinstein told the press that she'd primary someone against Gillibrand if she didn't come around on the issue. By 2013, Gillibrand had not only flipped on guns, she'd set herself up as one of the most strident voices in favor of gun control.
So, yes, the institutional pressure is there. I'm not fond of the situation, but for the time being, legislative and legal support for the 2nd Amendment is a partisan issue.