- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 51,547
- Reaction score
- 87,244
"If you’re pro-choice, it’s probably hard to swallow"
Obviously.
"If you’re pro-choice, it’s probably hard to swallow"
"Senator Chuck Schumer appealed to President Trump to pick Judge Merrick Garland for Supreme Court"
I don't know about the term "extremist," but saying that someone has an unusually expansive (or narrow) view of a constitutional provision (or right provided by one) that is out of step with current jurisprudence is a pretty normal line of criticism.Interesting take from WaPo. Is there an "Extremist" label for any other Constitutional rights?
I don't know about the term "extremist," but saying that someone has an unusually expansive (or narrow) view of a constitutional provision (or right provided by one) that is out of step with current jurisprudence is a pretty normal line of criticism.
Interesting take from WaPo. Is there an "Extremist" label for any other Constitutional rights?
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’
By Emma Brown | July 6, 2018
In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.
U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.
Constitutional law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman, who sits on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Pittsburgh, holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.
Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.
“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”
Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his own policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.
In 2013, Hardiman was part of a three-judge appeals panel deciding the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required citizens seeking a handgun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for such a weapon. The state defined “justifiable need” as an urgent need for self-protection because of “specific threats or recent attacks.”
Two judges voted to uphold the New Jersey law, finding it a constitutional way for the state to advance its goal of protecting public safety. Hardiman dissented, arguing that the law should be struck down.
Central to their disagreement was the Heller ruling, in which the Supreme Court did not directly weigh in on whether Americans also have a right to carry a gun in public but said that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. In his dissent, Hardiman said that Americans do have a right to carry guns outside their homes and that forcing citizens to prove they have a “justifiable need” to exercise that right amounts to an unconstitutional “rationing system.”
Gun ownership poses risks, and “States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent in the case, known as Drake v. Filko . “But states may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...726b70-8057-11e8-bb6b-c1cb691f1402_story.html
Yeah, it's usually couched in terms that ignores the underlying (asserted) constitutional provisionI'm sure if you told a Trumpublican that the "right to life" requires that the state provide food, shelter and medical care to every citizen they wouldn't call you a radical extremist.
I don't know about the term "extremist," but saying that someone has an unusually expansive (or narrow) view of a constitutional provision (or right provided by one) that is out of step with current jurisprudence is a pretty normal line of criticism.
By extremist they mean his views are in line with the 7th Circuit, D.C. Circuit, Supreme Courts of Florida and Illinois. All of which agree with this position.
I'm sure if you told a Trumpublican that the "right to life" requires that the state provide food, shelter and medical care to every citizen they wouldn't call you a radical extremist.
Lol, they're quoting a critic of a possible nominee.I'm familiar with the label of "outside of judicial norms" that Congress Dems tried to frame Gorsuch out of spite, but looks like the hyperbole is being racheted up a notch here with the new class of "Extremist" judge. By WaPo no less.
And water is wet.Swamp monster Schumer wants his guy in the supreme court
Dems have no one to blame but themselves. They set the precedent that being a US Attorney General and DC District Court judge wasn't qualifying enough.And water is wet.
In any case, Garland is eminently qualified and competent. More so than just almost everyone on that list by any non-ideological metric, and I like and admire some of the people on that list personally.