Profile image
By AmmoLand (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Trusting Republicans on Supreme Court Nominees Has Resulted in Big ‘Progressive’ Wins

Monday, February 13, 2017 17:33
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

By David Codrea

width="500" srcset=
" 600w, 225w, 450w, 768w, 500w, 825w"
sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" />Blindly trusting
establishment Republican judgment on Supreme Court nominations gave
us Warren Burger, who declared the individual rights interpretation
of the Second Amendment “a fraud,” and David Souter, who voted with
the gun-grabbers in the Heller case.

USA – -( "AmmoLand Reports" target="_blank" href="/r2/?url=" target=
)- “[M]uch of these Episcopal social
justice issues are mirrored in Catholic circles – and Scalia was a
staunch Catholic,” a critic asked regarding my trying to find out
if ""
target="_blank">“progressive” religious affiliations
Supreme Court nominee Neil Goruch’s legal opinions. “Do you want to
dig him up and quiz him too?”

I might be persuaded to dig Scalia up if the purpose was a
target="_blank">full and open autopsy
. As for finding out what
his understanding of Founding intent was before endorsing his
confirmation, of course I would have. I think a lot of gun owner
right advocates would love to have found out target="_blank" href="/r2/?url="
target="_blank">what kinds of “limitations”
he’d have viewed as
consistent with “shall not be infringed.”

Another critic asserted all Gorsuch would need to do is lie, and
that would render moot any answers he might give. As those lies
would take place in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, that is,
under oath, it’s curious that a supposed defender of the right to
keep and bear arms is so intent on giving a pass to someone he
suspects capable of perjury.

Basically, those objecting to ""
target="_blank">asking Gorsuch some straightforward questions

and expecting unequivocal answers are saying nominees should be
exempt from serious scrutiny when it comes to rights. We should
just shut up and trust our leaders will make sure we get the best
man for the job.

Let’s examine a few high-profile examples from recent history,
and see how blindly following Republicans has worked out.

First let’s look at Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Earl
Warren, both recess appointments by Republican President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, and both nominated for political reasons.

“Eisenhower once called the nominations … his two biggest
mistakes,” biographer ""
target="_blank">Kim Eisler confirmed
on The New York Times’
opinion page, refuting critics contesting such reports. Brennan was
approved “with ""
target="_blank">only Senator [Joseph] McCarthy voting against
,” and ""
target="_blank">Warren was unanimously confirmed
. Both proved
friends to the “liberals.”

Supposedly “conservative” Warren Burger, a Richard M. Nixon
appointee, also was ""
target="_blank">overwhelmingly approved, 74 to 3
, with one
(Fulbright) answering “Present” and 22 not voting. (As an
aside, “I am not a crook” ""
target="_blank">Tricky Dick wanted to ban handguns
.) Burger
addressed the Second Amendment not in any legal decision, but
"" target="_blank">in
Parade Magazine
of all places, and ""
target="_blank">had this to say about it on TV

The Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the
greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,’ on the American
public,” former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991
interview on PBS’s “MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.” Burger has said often
that the “right to bear arms” belongs to the states, and he has
attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

That brings us to David Souter, appointed by NRA Life Member
George H.W. Bush (until he quit in a public huff over Wayne
LaPierre calling federal agents who enforce citizen disarmament
edicts  “jack-booted thugs,” an appellation lifted from
Democrat John Dingell).

“Souter had the strong support of Bush’s White House chief of
staff John Sununu, who would assure his fellow conservatives that
Souter would be a “home run” for their team,” href=
target="_blank">Time Magazine recalled
. Thus he was "nofollow" href=
target="_blank">confirmed 90 to 9
, with all “Nay” votes coming
from Democrats.

Let’s look at how closely he was ""
target="_blank">grilled on guns

width="450" height="463" srcset=
" 450w, 225w, 500w, 551w"
sizes="(max-width: 450px) 100vw, 450px" />

“I guess I’m not going to worry about you at all”…?

“[M]y President appointed you, and I think you are going to be a
splendid, splendid judge”…?

Anybody see a question – or an answer – in there?

So should we have worried? Was Souter splendid?

Here’s ""
target="_blank">how he did on Heller

Right to gun ownership is collective, not individual.

“In retrospect, [Sununu] was right about the home run, wrong
about the team,” the Time report observed.

We also can’t forget Chief Justice John Roberts, again praised
by Republicans as the great conservative hope, href=
target="_blank">confirmed 78 to 22 with all “Nays”
coming from
the Democrats. While it’s true he voted the right way on Heller and
McDonald, not only has his court ""
target="_blank">avoided new Second Amendment cases
, his
inexplicable forehead-slapper of a ruling on Obamacare enables a
threat to RKBA ""
target="_blank">according to Gun Owners of America

Gun owners have, since 2009, pointed out that the federal health
database — created by section 13001 et seq. of the stimulus bill
and put in place by ObamaCare — will allow the federal government
to troll private health records for the purpose of stripping gun
rights from persons with ADHD, PTSD, and similar type maladies.

Not a SCOTUS nominee, but this is tangentially related, "nofollow" href=
"" target=
another Republican-appointed federal judge –
target="_blank">a “mainstream Republican”
— who was "nofollow" href=
target="_blank">unanimously confirmed
in 2004, and who just
blocked President Trump from ensuring “migrants” from problematic
Islamist countries aren’t hostile. As an aside, I’d like to know
this black-robed activist’s home address, not for malicious
purposes, but to just see how far removed from repercussions of his
treasonous ruling he lives.

Now we’re being told by the national “pro gun” groups to trust
establishment Republicans to safeguard that which “shall not
be infringed” and to go out there and stump for Gorsuch?  Will
they give us anything besides equivocal happy talk as to why?

We’re not supposed to ask any questions? And if we do, some act
like we’re rocking the boat and helping the gun-grabbers? Some get

Some of us – a handful, and probably not enough to make a
difference – believe “experience hath shewn”: It’s NOT asking tough
questions that has historically helped the Democrats time and
again. Raising questions is not disloyal; I’d argue the opposite is

If you’re against asking questions and demanding
unequivocal answers, you’re saying you’re fine with Brennan,
Warren, Burger and Souter, or at least with the rubber stamp
process by which they were confirmed. And you offer nothing to
change that.

If you’re for asking tough questions, then make your
expectations known – to NRA, SAF and GOA, to President Trump, and
also to Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. Also feel free to
ask your state gun group why they don’t speak up – it’s not like
this won’t affect them.

That’s if you’re serious about it draining the swamp. Are

And regardless, let’s all hope my concerns prove to be
completely unfounded. Because unless something completely
unforeseen happens, Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. And we’re all
going to find out – and be coerced into living with – what he means
by “ "" target=
"_blank">may not be infringed lightly

Also see Parts One and Two:

target="_blank"> ""
alt="" width="225" height="261" />
David Codrea in his natural

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for
investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights
advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at "nofollow" target="_blank" href="/r2/?url="
target="_blank">GUNS Magazine
and associate editor for "nofollow" href=
target="_blank">Oath Keepers
, he blogs at “ target="_blank" href="/r2/?url=" target="_blank">The War on
Guns: Notes from the Resistance
,” and posts on Twitter: "nofollow" href=
"" target=
and ""

This post ""
target="_blank">Trusting Republicans on Supreme Court Nominees Has
Resulted in Big ‘Progressive’ Wins
appeared first on "nofollow" target="_blank" href="/r2/?url=" target=
"_blank"> Shooting Sports News

height="1" width="1" alt="" />


Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global


Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.