Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Emanon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008

    The 4 justices who voted FOR GUN BAN: Who are they?

    I found it rather interesting that the four FOR GUN BANS, or to uphold a gun ban, all seemed to be of the same persuasion. I could be wrong and I would like ur feelings on it. I find the idea of gun bans so atrociously unconstitutional that it boggles the mind. So, if you stack the supreme court with "Idealogies" that are different you could pretty much bring this country and its constitution to its knees.

    Who were the 4? and what are their names?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Fenton, MI
    If you're trying to get us to vote for McCain on the grounds that his Supreme Court justice selections will be better, please note that the court also issued a ruling that declared yet another portion of his McCain/Feingold law unconstitutional on the very same day. (Google Davis v the FEC for details.)

    The "millionaire amendment" was the controversial piece of legislation that protected incumbents from being challenged from millionaire challengers. It did not even pretend to be devised to stop corruption.

    It also is a violation of the first amendment.

    So, if you think that McCain will support judges that will support the Constitution as written, you have a problem, Either you think that McCain will appoint judges that disagree with him on the Constitution and the First Amendment, or you think that he will appoint judges that will vote to ignore the Constitution when it suits them and protects his interests. Based on his track record, I have to believe the latter.

    Remember, McCain has said that Scalia is too conservative for him.

    This whole "Well, at least we can protect the court" is just a McCain talking point, and he certainly hasn't got the track record to back it up. The man is not worthy of the vote of anybody who can see out of their party blinders.
    "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

  3. #3
    Senior Member gofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

    This statement is absurd. OF ALL places a law-abiding citizen needs protection is a "crime-ridden area! The criminals have them, but the good guys can't! How insane is that???!!!

  4. #4
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    North Carolina
    Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter - all liberals! There, I'm not afraid to say it.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  5. #5
    Senior Member SOSADFORUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Breyer is a member if the CFR and his brother who is a huge traitor to the American people he sits on the 9th circuit ( that should say it all about him)...the whole family is traders to America our constitution and our sovereignty.
    Please support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 1970

    you want a candidate who is ...

    If you want a candidate for president who supports the constitution and the bill of rights Chuck Baldwin is your guy. His position on illegal immigration below.................
    "Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.

    By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.

    And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration."
    -Chuck Baldwin
    under current issues from constitution party webpage

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts