While you’re at it, Lawyer Giuliani, also tell us your opinion of Roe vs. Wade without mentioning Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
Today is one of the greatest days in constitutional law history in the affirmation of inalienable rights. One of the greatest judges of all time, Laurence Silberman penned the 2-1 majority opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in overturning gun laws in the District of Columbia?that have been characterized as among the most restrictive in the nation.
The laws you happily enforced in NYC as mayor have also been so characterized.
I saw your interview last month on Hannity & Colmes when you left the script and lapsed into a reference to “respect for precedent” when responding to a question about Roe. I haven’t forgotten what less savvy and/or in the tank for you?”journalists” and commentators missed the significance of or buried to protect you.
They can’t protect you from Gamecock defending the conservative Henhouse and the US Constitution.
You are a lawyer, sir. You want to be the man that chooses lawyers to serve as judges that interpret the word “is” and the rest of the words in the U.S. Constitution.
Rather than hiding behind the robes of judges your former boss Reagan and your post-9/11 hero Bush and his dad picked, tell us your opinion of Roe and the monumental gun rights case handed down by the D.C Court of Appeals today.
Please.
We don’t care to hear you play objective TV commentator. You want us to hire you to make decisions. So tell us sir what you think of these cases.
You have told us what you think of many other cases that restricted the rights of police. On those cases you didn’t lapse into any deference to the court or Alito worship.
The DC case declares that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms to protect one’s home, even if its in a big city like New York City. The case makes no distinction of such rights in big cities vs. non-big cities?like you have.
What is your opinion of the Silberman opinion??
I have never owned a gun, but I, and the rest of WE THE PEOPLE own this country, and if you want to be hired, please completely answer all questions on the job application.?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
March 10th, 2007 at 12:00 am
[...] post by Gamecock and software by Elliott [...]
March 10th, 2007 at 12:06 am
And then you’d accuse him of being a flip-flopper if he did. He’s consistent. Federalism is what conservatives really want on these issues, and federalism is what Rudy brings on this. The thing about Rudy, unlike McCain or Romney, is you really do know what you’re getting.
Why do you guys only attack Rudy? Why no acknowledgement of the way he went to war with the liberal bureaucracy that was NYC? Kicking Arafat out of the UN, pre-9-11. Bush or Mitt would never have the balls to. (And McCain would want to butter him up.)
March 10th, 2007 at 12:14 am
wrong
I am a flip flopper. I converted to right thinking. I was a democrat for 15 years before my 2000 conservative epiphany. I loved flip floppers like Reagan and I lean to Mitt now.
As long as one flops on the right position I’m happy.
I love Rudy on most issues, and would love for him to convert on the rest, or promise to advance the positions of those that hire him.
He wants a job. I want a job done, ie defense of the US and its Constitution. I’ll believe him if he promises to do so.
I admire Rudy for all you say and I hold all our candidates feet to the fire and I hold all democrats in such contempt that I hold their whole bodies in the fire!
March 10th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Yet another example of elistist, unelected judges substituting their opinions for the will of the people, as epressed through their elected representatives.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:22 am
The will of WE THE PEOPLE at a rate of 75% was registered when the Bill of Rights were ratified.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:35 am
“Mitt would never have the balls to. ”
Yes Mitt did. If you remember he denied police escort to the former Iranian president. And even denounced him in public.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:58 am
David B,
He kicked Arafat out of Lincoln Center (or was it Carnegie Hall?), not the UN.
And gee that was like, so ballsy. Its like, he had to go over and wrestle him to the ground, hoping of course that there was no suicide vest underneath the robes, then fend off the bodyguards with well placed kicks as he hustled him out the door. Whatta guy!
And dan, that Mitt is really something too! Denying police protection to a visting ex-head of state (y’know, the moderate one that we were hoping might have the juice to move things a little). What incredible courage! What vision!
March 10th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Tano,
Khatami as a Muslim Moderate. Oh, that’s a good one, really! That is an alliterative oxymoron if I ever saw one. Well, if you’re comparing any muslim to Ahamdinejad, sure they’re going to look moderate. But this is the same guy who ordered the torturing of his people, called for the destruction of Israel and sponsors terrorism. Remember Khobar Towers back in ‘96? Yeah, the explosion in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 American servicemen and wounded 100’s more? Iranian intelligence was in on that yet when Clinton asked for help in investigating the matter, Khatami refused. I almost prefer the hardline Muslims. At least there’s less doublespeak from them.
March 10th, 2007 at 3:33 am
David B:
The 2nd Amendment is only a federalism issue if you don’t believe it was incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
March 10th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Tano, are you joking? A hugely impactful action, which generated worldwide controversy. Vs. other leaders who appease our enemies. Even most Republicans wouldn’t do that. BTW, it was the UN 50th Celebration, regardless of the venue.
March 10th, 2007 at 6:14 am
wrong Thomas Alan
The first amendment says “congress” shall pass no law. The 2nd does not and always applied to protect an individuals’ right to bear arms that the states could not abridge. Read the federalist papers and Silberman’s opinion this week in the DC case.
March 10th, 2007 at 6:30 am
No Dave, .
Hugely impactful? What planet are you on? It was a cheap publicity stunt that went over good with the locals
Look, you might detest Arafat (who didnt?), but if he comes to your city in a diplomatic role, then you extend the basic courtesies. There are, on a constant basis, all manner of scumbag dictators that come to NY. You play host, on the expectation that your own diplomats will be treated with basic respect when they are overseas.
I’ll grant one thing. It was not nearly as cheap as Romney’s stunt. Police protection for a visiting dignitary is not only basic, minimal hospitality, it is very much in Americas interest. What was he hoping for, that the ex Iranian president would be assualted in the US? That would have been helpful.
March 10th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Bark Twig,
What on earth is your point? If you dont want the guy visiting the US, thats one thing.
But if he comes, you withdraw police protection? What kind of idiocy is that?
March 10th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Rudy’s going to have to start changing his positions, or his poll numbers are going to start flying south. I think he thinks he can ride the media wave of support right into the nomination. I heard Chris Matthews gushing about Rudy the other night, and I’ve seen where a couple of people on this site who call themselves liberal say they like him.
What does that tell us? Perhaps that he’s a liberal? Having been involved in last year’s rumble, I know that there’s a number of moderate Republicans who think last year is the fault of social and Christian conservatives, and they think it’s time to move away from them. That’s fine, although I don’t know what they’ll do without the party’s base. Sink probably.
If you put Rudy up against Hillary, here’s a scenario that I fear. Rudy with his poor treatment of his wives, will be against Hillary, a poorly treated wife.
Any guesses how that will go over with the soccer moms? Hillary will be running against her own husband! It will be a modified version of triangulation
extraordinaire!
March 10th, 2007 at 7:43 am
good points Gary
but I think Rudy beats Hillary in a landslide anyway
I don’t fear McGovernites.
Maybe I should, but I look at history since 1972
March 10th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Any pro-Romney guys on here seen the new MittLink website? Send me an email at rbrun79@gmail.com and I’ll email the link to you.
Ray B
Portsmouth, NH
March 10th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I don’t fear McGovernites either, Gamecock, but Hillary has that certain chameleon characteristic about her that I don’t think anyone can match. If something were to happen terror wise, I think she would transform herself into a Margaret Thatcher type woman.
She is one tough broad and cunning too.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:01 am
We conservatives like Rudy too. When its Rudy against Hillary or Hussein, you will all come on board.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Grant,
If it’s Rudy, most of us will come on board, IMHO. The same can be said, however, for most of the GOP potentials vs. a true liberal Dem.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Business conservatives will come aboard, but after seeing so many social and Christian conservatives stay at home in 2006 because they were disgusted with the Foley scandal, and felt that their support had been largely taken for granted, if I were Giuliani, I would be trying to reach out to them. Right now, he seems to believe that’s below him.
That would be a huge, huge mistake for any candidate. Can Rudy beat Hillary? Not without the social conservative base’s support.
I’ve already heard talk, and some columnists have said that maybe what the Republicans need is to lose the Presidency in 2008 so that the party can re-learn just exactly what it stands for.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Gary
The negative turnout against Hillary will break records. Most would not be fooled by any “transformation” especially after seeing how she has equivocated since 9/11. No enemy abroad fears her and won’t. Americans will see that. Esp when we play Bill’s Davos talk in 2003 praising Iran.
In 2003.
Hillary didn’t dissent and even now seeks to prevent Bush from attacking them.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Fedo and Grant
All Dems are true liberals. Some lie better than others. But most have been fooled lately by the MSM to think they can be honest about their worship on McGovernism and blame america firstism and still be elected during a war.
Thank God for dim dem lib fools.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Gamecock,
I guess I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t intending “a true liberal” as a qualifier. Rather, true libs and “Democrats” are synonyms.
Oh, I think there’s a stray blue dog who might harbor some conservative social feelings, but those will be quickly hidden in favor of the views of their party’s fundraising network. And then of course, there’s the fact that regardless of Bob Casey’s view on abortion, putting him in the Senate put Pat Leahy back in charge of the judiciary committee. If you care about conservative values, you can’t afford to let Dems win.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I know you did brother Fredo
I just wanted to write something bashing democrats and libs.
feels right!
ps it does appear that some blue dogs are asserting some conservative sanity behind the scenes but they won’t get nominated)
March 10th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I don’t know. I know people who have come back from Iraq and who feel like there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats,
because Democrats come out and say they’re against the war, while Republicans lack of support for an ALL OUT effort makes them seem like they’re against the war.
If veterans are that disillusioned with both sides, and the xperience I had with GOTV phone calls last year, I have an impending sense of doom for 2008, if things don’t change.
March 10th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Gary
They must be disabused of this feeling for it is very false. The best disabusers will be the presidential nominees. They will make sure. But we must help prepare the way now.
March 10th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Tano,
Regarding police protection of foreign dignataries and the like.
Firstly, anyone who is worth anything in the Mideast has an entourage of bodyguards that will make a small army nervous. Khatami didn’t need the escort. It’s a courteous gesture, but unnecessary. The place where police protection is most needed is the Mideast. Ask Rafik Hariri how safe an ex-head of state is in the Mideast. Oh wait, you can’t do that anymore.
Even if it were just a publicity stunt to illustrate his defiance against ‘Islamic despotism’ in general, he still saved taxpayer’s money in the process thus beefing up his fiscal conservative stance as well. That makes him double-plus good in my book.
But despite all this, it does seem rather rude and impolitic to refuse protective police services and security. We would not want visiting heads of state to feel like we’re encouraging any attacks on them or that we’re compromising their security. That’s why we should give them as much protection and help as they ‘deserve’.
I simply propose this: we won’t withdraw our police protection when ex-presidents visit if their countries withdraw their clandestine funding and arming of terrorists. Even if he is not directly responsible for these actions, it happened on his watch. We have to send a message and actions speak louder than words in this regard.
Discouraging people from attacking Israel would be the proper and polite thing for Khatami and the like to have done, no? Yet that is not what is happening. Quite the opposite. Still, we’re expected to bend over backwards and roll out the red carpet, when they themselves will not even consider likewise treatment to us and our allies.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Rudy on his marital vows: flip, flop, flip, and flop.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:49 am
#11 Gamecock
The specificity of Congress in the 1st Amendment does not mean that the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights suddenly became incumbant upon the states. To this day several portions of the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated by the Supreme Court like the right to a jury trial for civil cases for matters over $20 (imagine THAT nightmare!).
Incorporation began in 1925 with Gitlow v. New York.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Thomas Alan
I am aware of what the Supreme Court has ruled and with the Constitution, incl the Bill of Rights and the i4th Amendment, say.
Law School and many trials and appeals later…and I’ll grant you it is a complicated issue.