Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring-Kavanaugh Nominated

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I appreciate Brian's post as political scientists, lawyers concerned with constitutional issues, historians, etc. have pointed out that the polarization and group think that I previously mentioned has polluted and distorted the political processes. The primaries are driven by fringes. The process has been documented for many years and we now live in the age of the litmus test.

To deny that ideology of the extremes drives the process to a large extent is to miss the big picture. We choose judges for their ideology and despite protestations that it is not true, behavioral research seems to indicate that a major of decision making variance can be understood by an ideological position that then seeks precedents in the weeds of legislative and judicial prose. To deny that is just as silly as Hillary trusting her analytics to win the election for her.

So, behaviorally - I wonder if one has looked for indicators that judicial candidates have shown any interest in firearms. Do they own a handgun, did they hunt, did they grow up in a gun culture before they went to an elitist law school? If not, expecting to understand that an EBR may be something a regular person should be able to own, might be alien to their mind. That would filter their view of the 2nd and precedents. A SW Model 10 might be ok in the underwear draw but that's it.

Now, this behavioral history may not be a good indicator in all cases. Rachel Madow is a fan of ARs and 1911s but like bans. GWB, the Doles, Romneys, Trump - all were fans of the AWB.

But the information would be interesting.

I don't really expect a new justice to cause the court to take on cases that would overturn the state bans, allow national reciprocity, or any of our pet causes. The same pressures that might protect the sexuality decisions that drive the GOP fringe to wave their arms would probably leave them to let the lower court decisions stand.

As I said before, also, I have little use for fringe concerns that limit all sorts of personal liberties. If you don't like a behavior that doesn't impact you, don't do it.

In a sense, this would be financially good news for gun rights organizations as a sweeping decision that takes away our ban and confiscation worries would vaporized a good part of their membership.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

As I said before, also, I have little use for fringe concerns that limit all sorts of personal liberties. If you don't like a behavior that doesn't impact you, don't do it.

I am 1000% on board with this way of thinking with the addition of people being completely responsible (including financial) for only their own actions.

[Kirosha]

I don't see Jones flipping at all. He's too interested in the typical Democrat agenda.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I doubt any of them would give any indication. It's just bad form for a candidate to telegraph how they might rule in the future. It shows pre-existing bias, and it would be political suicide in a confirmation hearing.

What a U.S. Supreme Court candidate says during confirmation hearings probably isn't a good indicator of what they will do on the bench if confirmed unless it matches up with their judicial behavior prior to the hearings. In general, do judges deviate significantly on the U.S. Supreme Court compared to their lower court rulings?

[Aguila Blanca]

Now, as for needing all 51 Republicans, that might not be so. We have several Democrats like Manchin and Tester whose states were red for the 2016 election and who voted to confirm Gorsuch.

In the halcyon days of my youth, long before we had NORAD, our skies were still surveyed for aircraft movements by a network of volunteer spotters manning tiny cabins scattered across the country. I was a volunteer spotter. The nomenclature was

one ==> One
Two ==> Two
Few ==> Three thru (IIRC) five
Many ==> Six (??) or more

There were three Democrats who voted for Gorsuch. That's more than one, but I don't consider three to be "several." The vote was 54 to 45, with 3 Democrats for, 2 independents against, and one Republican not voting.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tion-vote.html

A couple of flips, a couple of abstentions, and we'll have a horse race.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting analysis from a presidential historian the other day. He said that Harry Truman, when he left office, said one of his biggest fears was that the parties would become a liberal party and a conservative party with no overlap.

That's what we are seeing today, despite deniers of it being a problem. That drives the nominees and we are getting to a stage where you have to check all the litmus test boxes.

[MTT TL]

It's not really "liberal vs conservative". At least not in the terms I understand them.

[rickyrick]

No it’s “socialists Vs. representative republic”

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The reality show on Monday will bring us all the answer to the question.

Still don't think it will move the needle towards more gun positive decisions.

Hope I am surprised.

[vicGT]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Still don't think it will move the needle towards more gun positive decisions.

Maybe that's the America from which Justice Kennedy retired...where the best we can hope for is that we don't move the needle away from more positive gun decisions.

[Aguila Blanca]

I just hope Kavanaugh isn't the choice

[MTT TL]

Supposed to be down to three now.

http://time.com/5330782/donald-trump...supreme-court/

Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge

I am with you on Kavanaugh, likely the worst of the three.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What are the RKBA records of the three? I looked up Barrett and opinion was that we had no idea. Anyone look up the others? I suppose I could but I think I will sort the laundry.

[MTT TL]

Kavanaugh is pro 2A it's the rest of the BoR the worries people.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...nt-gun-rights/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Kavanaugh is pro 2A it's the rest of the BoR the worries people.

Yes ... BIG TIME.

He seems to have zero regard for the Fourth Amendment, and that's a major concern. I more or less think of myself as mostly a single-issue voter (2nd Amendment), but when you throw domestic spying and the Patriot Act into the mix, suddenly my single-issue stance looks a bit wobbly.

[MTT TL]

It's tough to protect the 2A without the 4A, kind of first or second layer thing.

[L2R]

I agree 100% A.B.
I have little respect for those who diminish the 2A because it is a part of the BOR I have the same issue with those who do it to another.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A run down of Raymond Kethledge’s major constitutional rulings:
https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/05/s...d-kethledge-on

He is basically a null value as he has written very little on the Second Amendment. He also just recently had the honor of having SCOTUS overturn his decision on warrantless cellphone tracking. Mixed bag on First Amendment issues; but some important rulings limiting the takings clause (eminent domain and tax foreclosures).

Barrett also has no Second Amendment jurisprudence. She was supported in her appeals court nomination unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which means she picked up the votes of Joe Manchin, Tim Kaine, and Joe Donnelly. The only positive I saw on 2A issues is she wrote a law review article saying the original intent of the Constitution trumps stare decisis. If she actually believes that and defends it in nomination, that will create quote a storm.

It looks like the most insidery nominee (Kavanaugh) is the only one with a solid pro-2A jurisprudence.

[Aguila Blanca]

Kethledge does appear to be a mixed bag. From Mr. Roberts' link:

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Kethledge's Carpenter decision. "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere," declared the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts. "We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information."

This one is particularly troubling. If even Roberts didn't agree with him, IMHO he was way off track. And he was -- the government today is much too engaged in covert surveillance of the citizens, and we need a Supreme Court (as well as lower judiciary) who will rein it in, not encourage it.

Among property rights activists, Kethledge is perhaps best known for his 2017 dissent in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. At issue was a forfeiture and foreclosure proceeding undertaken against a Michigan church over delinquent property taxes. "In this case the defendant Van Buren County took property worth $206,000 to satisfy a $16,750 debt, and then refused to refund any of the difference," Kethledge wrote. "In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft." Kethledge argued that the church had raised a legitimate just compensation claim that deserved to be heard under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.

Mildly positive, but this case could have been decided as a "1983" case -- this wasn't so much a question of whether or not the government had a right to take the property under eminent domain as it was a question of theft under color of law. Basically, here the government stole about $190,000. That's a fairly clear-cut question.

In his non-judicial writings, Kethledge has voiced support for the theory of constitutional interpretation known as originalism. In a 2017 article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, for example, he argued that judges "are bound to apply" the "meaning [of a constitutional provision] that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved."

This philosophy is certainly positive -- if he lives by it.

[maestro pistolero]

I predict that the scoundrel (my former hero) John McCain, if he hasn't passed (may he live as long as he wants to), will cast the deciding vote on the Trump nominee . . . .

[turkeestalker]

Still don't think it will move the needle towards more gun positive decisions.

I agree with you at this stage of the game, and I am also convinced that one more appointment is in this administration's future.

Not asking anyone to believe me because obviously I could be wrong...
there could be even more than just one!

[Aguila Blanca]

In post #94, above, I wrote the following:

This one is particularly troubling. If even Roberts didn't agree with him, IMHO he was way off track. And he was -- the government today is much too engaged in covert surveillance of the citizens, and we need a Supreme Court (as well as lower judiciary) who will rein it in, not encourage it.

I'd like to expand on that. The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, or way off base, but to me being "secure in [my] person" includes being free to travel where I want, when I want, without the government keeping track of my movements. If I'm suspected of having committed a crime, the .gov can go to a judge and make a showing of probable cause for why a warrant should be issued to obtain my cell phone tracking information for the period immediately before, during, and immediately after the crime. Beyond that, the .gov has no business being in possession of my cell phone location information. They certainly have no business Hoovering up my entire cell phone database, along with millions of other cell phone users who have never so much as received a speeding ticket.

[MTT TL]

It's a short hop, skip and a jump from government overreach on the 4th to government abuse of other rights. We have all seen it before.

[rc]

Brett Kavanaugh

[TXAZ]

It's Official: Brett Kavanaugh.