Thread: 3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment?

This article may be a year old but it still remains as relative today as it was when written. It's definitely worth considering for those voters who remain undecided.

Sunday, October 19, 2008 Today's Edition

Posted: October 11, 2007
1:00 am Eastern

By Sandy Froman
© 2008

Some conservative leaders are saying they might back a third-party candidate if the GOP nominee is not pro-life. While the principles and values underlying their point of view are understandable, there are serious unintended consequences to such action. Voting for a third party in 2008 could cost conservatives the Supreme Court, and with it the Second Amendment.

If conservatives vote for a third party, it will give the Democratic nominee the votes needed to win. It's a tough time for Republicans, and there aren't any votes to spare to keep Hillary Clinton from taking the Oval Office.

One thing the Democratic presidential candidates have in common is what sort of judges they will appoint to the Supreme Court. Not only did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vote against Justice Alito (who was confirmed 58-42), they also voted against Chief Justice Roberts (who was overwhelmingly confirmed 78-22).

Even though the majority of their fellow Democrats supported Roberts, Sens. Clinton and Obama opposed him. That's because Clinton and Obama are committed to appointing judges that satisfy the leftist base of the Democratic Party. Given the liberal activist judges Clinton or Obama would appoint, you can count on those judges being anti-Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court teeters on a knife's edge right now, with moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote in every 5-4 decision last year. With your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms likely to be heard by the high court soon, splitting from the GOP means losing the hope of building a textualist, originalist court – one that would uphold the text of the Second Amendment in accordance with its original meaning.

Anything that could cost us our Second Amendment rights is unacceptable. So gun owners must say "no" to a third-party bid.

As I write this, the D.C. gun ban case of District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly named Parker v. District of Columbia) has been offered to the Supreme Court. The question before the court is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

We're all waiting to see whether the high court takes the Heller case. If the court does hear it, it will probably be another 5-4 decision.

Every Republican candidate – including current front-runner Rudy Giuliani – has promised to appoint originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court. Every Democrat candidate – led by Hillary Clinton – has promised to appoint justices who would continue supporting a liberal social agenda. History shows that the activist agenda includes holding that the Second Amendment does not give you the individual right to own a firearm.

And remember that 99 percent of federal cases never make it to the Supreme Court. Most federal appeals are decided at the circuit court level. There are critical gun rights cases pending in federal courts across the country. Those cases could shape gun ownership in America forever. The next president will pick dozens of federal appeals court judges who will make final decisions in federal cases involving your gun rights.

This is also about more than just the Second Amendment. There are other social issues in play as well. All these issues stand or fall together. They're all at stake in the 2008 elections, because the next president's appointees will decide their fate.

Consider the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. The most liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, is also the oldest. He turns 88 next April. The second most liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a cancer survivor in her mid-70s. The third most liberal justice, David Hackett Souter, by all accounts hates life in D.C. A recent book on the Supreme Court, "The Nine" by Jeffery Toobin, says Justice Souter contemplated leaving the court after Bush v. Gore in 2000. These are likely the next justices to retire.

Whether vacancies on the Supreme Court are filled with liberal activist jurists or with conservative jurists faithful to the text of the Constitution depends in large part on the outcome of the presidential election.

It's ironic that many of the most outspoken critics of judicial activism are the same people threatening to promote a third-party candidate, risking the loss of the Supreme Court. It's also ironic that the issues these leaders are outspoken about are decided by the Supreme Court, not by the president.

Many of us have fought for years to restore a Supreme Court faithful to the text and meaning of the Constitution. It's almost within our grasp. It would be a tragedy of historic proportions to lose that fight now.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=58073

Ralph Nader posed a danger to Al Gore in 2000. Maybe the final electoral count was not determined by that factor but the possibility was certainly there. Third Party candidates, now mainly conservative, may very well alter the direction of this country for several decades. Do they really want to see an ultraliberal shift throughout all institutions in the US?

Yes they can get the issues out for discussion....no problem with that. But we all are going to have to deal with the reality of what this country will turn into.

MW,

Must you start this same conversation Again? How many times have you started one of these lesser of two evils game threads?

W

Captainron wrote:

Do they really want to see an ultraliberal shift throughout all institutions in the US?

Obama and Biden are about as liberal as it gets. Combine them with a Democrat (liberal) controlled Congress and we could be in BIG trouble.

William wrote:

MW,

Must you start this same conversation Again? How many times have you started one of these lesser of two evils game threads?

W

Huh? I think, if you check out my posting history, you'll find that I seldom start threads. Why do you feel the need to personally criticize my thread? No need to make this personal.

Additionally, if you'll note, I specifically said my posting was for those who remain undecided. Why shouldn't this be a consideration for those folks? Honestly, I'm not attempting to influence those that have already made their minds up because I know that would be a futile endeavor.

I am voting conservative. I am not voting for McCain.

There is no reason to believe that McCain won't reach across the aisle and compromise on gun control, or any other "scare tactic" issue the left-leaning McCain supporters can roll out while ominously shaking their heads.

You're being played. And people just like you have made this country exactly what it is today. Congratulations.

It's America, you're free to sell out your principles, but it only really means, at the end of the day, is you don't actually have any.

I do.

AngelaTC wrote:

You're being played. And people just like you have made this country exactly what it is today. Congratulations.

Geez, why do some feel the need to come at me with personal attacks for simply posting something I consider worthy of consideration.

Please don't make me feel like a 'victim' for sharing my concerns.

It's America, you're free to sell out your principles, but it only really means, at the end of the day, is you don't actually have any.

Personally accusing me of having no principles crosses the line. That's a definite insult and it shouldn't be tolerated at ALIPAC (IMO). Actually, I, as well as those who know me personally, consider me extremely principled (almost to the point of being stubborn).

CONGRESS!

Originally Posted by MW

AngelaTC wrote:

You're being played. And people just like you have made this country exactly what it is today. Congratulations.

Geez, why do some feel the need to come at me with personal attacks for simply posting something I consider worthy of consideration.

Because there's nothing about McCain that makes it worth considering a vote for him. If you're allowed to try to frighten the undecideds, I am allowed to present the huge hole in the justification-of-the-day.

There is absolutely no reason to think that he won't sign off on gun control.

You knew this opinion is unpopular in the immigration forums, so stop playing the victim.


Edited to Add: Look at the list of judges - the next 3 likely to retire are 3 of the biggest liberals - one of whom (Souter) was appointed by another middle-of-the-road Republican. G. H. W. Bush. He rode into Washington on Reagan's coattails, and got voted right out because the GOP didn't want a tax-raising, liberal-appointing Republican in office.

AngelaTC wrote:

If you're allowed to try to frighten the undecideds, I am allowed to present the huge hole in the justification-of-the-day.

I'm not trying to frighten anyone. I simply providing information for consideration. Does presenting your so-called "huge hole" include personal insults? Do your "principles" make it okay to personally attack ALIPAC members that you disagree with? Well, mine don't.

You knew this opinion is unpopular in the immigration forums, so stop playing the victim.

Are you suggesting I censor my views and beliefs simply because they may be unpopular with some? Sorry, my principles won't allow me to do that either.