Supreme Court Justice Breyer

[John Galt]

I'm sitting here watching Chris Wallace interview SC Justice Breyer and Wallace asked him about the 2nd Amendment and its applications. I feel like I just had an epiphany after watching this Constitutional enemy regurgitate the typical Left's distortion of their Constitutional "interpretation" of our NATURAL right to bear arms. I was stunned at his arrogance and hubris, and after hearing Breyer speak, my understanding of what free America is up against has just been reinforced. Maybe I am just too naive to believe the Amendments to mean what they say.

 

[4sarge]

Watching the same and Outraged This is why Obama & Clinton made Social Justice Appointments to SCOTUS and are filling the Justice Department and Federal Judgeships with like minded Socialists

 

[Expat]

One can't help but wonder what some of our Founders would make of Justices on the SCOTUS that do not believe in the very Constitution they are sworn to defend. They would probably be even more distressed that the people of this country seem to be unbothered by it.

 

[John Galt]

One can't help but wonder what some of our Founders would make of Justices on the SCOTUS that do not believe in the very Constitution they are sworn to defend. They would probably be even more distressed that the people of this country seem to be unbothered by it.

I believe the Founders demonstrated what they thought regarding tyrannical leaders by their ultimate actions. I develop a greater respect for that generation with every word I study regarding that era and the Declaration of Indepence particularly is such a beautiful document with its explanation/description of tyranny, patience, and ultimately, the resolve to actually act upon said tyranny.
I pray for peace and God Bless America

 

[MTC]

... watching this Constitutional enemy regurgitate the typical Left's distortion of their Constitutional "interpretation" of our NATURAL right to bear arms. I was stunned at his arrogance and hubris...

Saw an hour-long interview with him about 15 years ago. Did he go over that "rational basis test" again? (used to legitimize "common sense [gun] laws" and "reasonable restrictions" on your right to keep and bear arms.)

Unfortunately, he and like-minded "modern scholars" have been molding young minds - both in law schools and on the post secondary level in general - for many years. Notice any similarity between his views and another so-called "foremost expert" on the 2nd Amendment?
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._s_new_paradigm_for_the_second_amendment.html

 

[JR50]

I agree with the OP. It was shocking to see Mr. Justice Breyer say that the gun ban in Washington DC was fine because "people that like to shoot pistols at targets could get on a subway and go to Maryland". With that disrespect for the Constitution, soon there would be no more Marylands.

Mr. Justice Breyer is willing to blot out the Second Ammendment based upon what he (Mr. Breyer) supposes James Madison might have thought about phrasing the 2A 'to get it passed". The justice read the 2A and his very clear emphasis was upon 'regulated militia' not the 'right of the people'.

The election of people like Clinton and Obama erode our rights by the appointments they make. It's not tin foil hat time, it's just plain scary.

 

[indykid]

These morons, and I use that word in the dictionary sense, forget that when the constitution was written, a "well regulated militia" was THE PEOPLE! Not some uniformed group of elitists. (Please don't read it my statement as meaning our current armed forces which are absolutely anything but a group of elitists, but our finest citizens taking defense of this land to the ultimate.)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms was and still is a requirement so that in the event of a government upheaval which happens all the time around the world, we the people would be able to defend this country as a well armed militia as defined to be needed for the security of a free state.

It is not open to interpretation, nor "reasonable restrictions". It was written intentionally so that the government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth.

But there are those in high place that rightfully fear the people, since they fear the concept of a populous ruled government. And they understand that they are the very reason the second amendment was written.

 

[Arthur Dent]

The main problem is that too many people are just fine watching rights get eroded and eventually taken away then get in a tizzy when they become the next target and can't for the life of them figure out why.

"Getting groped before you fly is fine because I want to fly safe."

Next week it becomes "Holy crap! These people are searching my car for contraband and I haven't done anything wrong! We need to do something!"

 

[Pocketman]

These morons, and I use that word in the dictionary sense, forget that when the constitution was written, a "well regulated militia" was THE PEOPLE! Not some uniformed group of elitists. (Please don't read it my statement as meaning our current armed forces which are absolutely anything but a group of elitists, but our finest citizens taking defense of this land to the ultimate.)

According to the constitution of Indiana, and other states, we the people still are the militia.

 

[INGunGuy]

And he is called a Supreme Justice, sounds to me like a Supreme Turd Hole...

INGunGuy

 

[menzzer37]

Best quote from him, "they were afraid they would call up state militias and nationalize them".... enter the national guard. Thanks Slick Willy! What a bunch of jackoffs....

 

[88GT]

Instances like this always bring to mind the movie The Pelican Brief.

Not that I advocate what transpires in it one bit, but I'm always a little flabbergasted that our justices seem to dodge the ire and frustration of the people even though they are ultimately the final arbiters of what survives and what doesn't.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Instances like this always bring to mind the movie The Pelican Brief.

Not that I advocate what transpires in it one bit, but I'm always a little flabbergasted that our justices seem to dodge the ire and frustration of the people even though they are ultimately the final arbiters of what survives and what doesn't.

They have a job for life. They can't be removed except by death or retirement and answer to nobody. No one is going to fire them so what incentive is there to do the right thing?

 

[88GT]

They have a job for life. They can't be removed except by death or retirement and answer to nobody. No one is going to fire them so what incentive is there to do the right thing?

Have you seen the movie I referenced?

 

[Duncan]

Watching the same and Outraged This is why Obama & Clinton made Social Justice Appointments to SCOTUS and are filling the Justice Department and Federal Judgeships with like minded Socialists

Don't forget that Bush 2 said he would sign an AWB 2 if it hit his desk .

Duncan

 

[hoosierjohn]

Don't forget that Bush 2 said he would sign an AWB 2 if it hit his desk .

Duncan

Yep, take nothing for granted. There are plenty of examples of anti-gun Republicans. Remember, Lugar and Coats both voted for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, aka Assault Weapons Ban.

 

[dross]

You guys assume that Breyer cares what the Constitution says. He doesn't. I don't say that as an insult to him, and it's not hyperbole. He thinks his role is different. He adheres to a living Constitution theory, and he thinks he was appointed to use his interpretations of the Constitution to do good.

This is one of the main reasons why the two parties are not equally bad, as some claim. Given that Justices tend to drift towards less fundamental interpretations of the Constitution over their tenure, and that a sizable percentage of Justices appointed by Republicans do so dramatically, the Justices appointed by Democrats are uniformly bad, with no dedication to the Constitution.

If you look at some very major rulings over the past few years it's only the Justices appointed by Republicans who stand between us and a very scary scenario. Take away just one Republican term over the last forty years, and we don't have Heller, in fact, we might now be living under a ruling where the Court found that there was NO individual right to bear arms.

Bad is bad and good is good, but there is such a thing as lesser bad.