It is in the best interest of the GOP to approve Garland

I voted Cruz last night, supporting trump today and throughout unless Kasich drops out and Cruz wins outright.

Republican senate confirms nominations. Their constituents are against it therefore they should be. They serve us, I have no problem with not moving on it. Most pro gun citizens wouldn't either.

As far as Trump winning or losing, he stands the best chance at beating Hillary Obama Clinton. This is not a typical election aside from the side show, the balance of justice also floats freely.

It's March, come November people who say never, will. This works both ways.

This isn't past elections, times have changed and so have the stakes.


In all honesty, I worry more about the SCOTUS nominee(s) than the next president. One is a set term, the other can change history forever

 

Posted this on another site, figured I'd post it here as well since it was on a similar nominate now or else agenda



So they confirm him, and suddenly the SCOTUS is ready to take on 2nd amendment cases again.

Is that a win also?

If I'm in a no win situation I think most times I will fight to the end just to be sure rather than concede and let it be.

Obama teased the waters with Sandoval. Then offers this after Sandoval was skepticized(word?). Calculated and premeditated for end results.

All the more reason to stand behind Trump now, get Kasich out and take our chances there.

Less than 8 months to the election, 3 to the candidate nomination.

 

I can respect that line of thought.

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


[video]https://youtu.be/PzUuQOo4NpQ[/video]

 

I have been looking at the numbers in the primaries and from what I saw yesterday in the primaries the numbers of democrats that voted was down from the last primaries in every single state, I don't think that either candidate for the democrats has energized their party. I also do not believe the polls when it come to their predictions because like the media there is a bias and the establishment does not want Trump to be in the position that he is and to be honest if the established politicians and the mainstream media are anti Trump the more I am likely to cast my vote for him. Then again I tend to be a contrary SOB.

 

Back to the original topic and why I support the refusal to even hear or have hearings on a new justice and this lame duck getting a crack at appointing his choice. The executive action has been abused by the current president he has said to hell with the system and did what he wanted to do in his term especially the second one and guess what payback for doing things his own way has cost him his chance about having his way before he goes out.

 

What exactly is his 2A position?

 

I'll be honest any nominee deserves the due process of what every nominee has had prior...if after that he is voted down then there is at least been a fair shake. (or claimed one).

As for the election, Trump I dislike for many of the same reasons I dislike Obama....power tripping big whigs that I think deep down feel they are above everyone. However, that all said in the end I'll probably vote Trump...solely on the fact it is a vote against the establishment. I kinda like the idea of my vote being against the felon Clinton and also against the Republican establishment which in many ways has gotten ridiculous in it's own right.

My dream candidacy (at this point) is Trump with a strong conservative or constitutional running mate...perhaps he shocks everyone (his style) and calls upon Jeb or Cruz or Paul or someone similar?!?! Honestly, I think the general election depends a lot on who Trump chooses as a running mate.

Just to be clear that is my dream now...wasn't the case prior to the primaries.

 

Depends on what side of the government/lobbyist/ corporate sponsored media you want to believe.
The NRA been pumping out money to places like heritage ect to have op eds ready for any potential nominees. And the leftist hacks at media matters and progressive driven dribblers had defense ready.
Neither side makes a strong case in my opinion. And most are biased one way or the other. Environmentally and in case of federal agencies he show notable deference.
On 2A there is little to go by, most of what the right is stating is trumped up crap. However on the other hand there isn't any thing that shows he considers the 2a an individual right either.
Reading his ruling for most of the day yesterday shows me a very concise mind that can focus on specific judgements, ruling strongly case by case building very strong positions. He record of following precedent is very well noted.
It's clear that if confined he will be most centrist nomination from a democratic president in a long long time, it wouldn't be a shocker if was confirmed by republicans.

 

Give this man a gold star.

 

Agreed. People keep saying Garwin is anti-2A, but we have nothing that shows that to be true. And like you said, we don't have anything to show that he is pro-2A either.

It would be futile for the republicans to not give him a fair hearing, but I'm not holding my breath...

 

The only thing I would address in this if I may. If you said Trump was egotistical I would agree. However coming from someone that has meet him on more then one occasion and dealt with him I have never seen him treat anyone like they are beneath him, no way in hell did he ever personally come across that way. In fact it's just the opposite he was respectful, accommodating and personable and able to interact with anyone he came in contact with.

Now should he act like politicians are beneath him? I would say yes when you look at the current state of the federal government. We should all act like they are beneath us. Why? 19 trillion dollars in debt, open boarders, terrible economy, citizens United vs fec, a middle class that has been cast aside, a corporate government partnership unlike the world has ever seen, a corrupt media. Should I keep going? Politicians are beneath us at this point.

 

I would love to meet that Donald Trump

 

Love to hear that, I've watched Fox News in the morning a ton and I'll be honest he grew on me over the months as they had him on weekly...and now his one son does that stint and he seems nice too.

I'd agree with your take on should he look down on politicians. The trump mentality sometimes is a little strong for me, but then again I'm a fan of quiet unshaking strength shown through actions not words, he does need to bite his tongue (as it is childish at times) but I don't think he is this atrocity some of my conservative friends think he is.

Not being a politician is going to be a HUGE factor in why I think he gets elected....and the ABW (anyone but Hillary) campaign. Would be amazing if Trump steals a lot of Bernie supporters.

 

I would also add, a big positive in the Trump card for me is his business background, negotiating table deals and no fear of others (plays in his favor yes at times not always negative).

Trump is not afraid to make deals with the other side if it means accomplishing something big...which is why I think the established Republicans fear him and some hate him.

 

I didn't google anything to fit my cause, just copied and pasted from this article. It was the first article on him before the official announcement. Thought I posted the link but double posted the text.

Obama

That said, you are right, a member of another forum who is stickler for the justice system and has a depth of knowledge on 2A issues posted this

"He's said to be an anti because he voted to rehear Parker v. D.C and sided with the government in....I forgot the citation for the NICS records retention case from 2000. Just because he voted to rehear Parker doesn't mean he's anti-gun. I mean, it's a strong indicator but he simply could have believed that the entire court should hear the case due to its significance (probably the most significant 2A case to end up in front of CADC, possibly most significant case period). To the best of my knowledge, he didn't vote to rehear Heller III in which the panel struck down several D.C. gun control ordinances.

It's just the luck of the draw that he wasn't selected for the Parker panel or we'd really know where he stands. He hasn't been drawn to sit on any major 2A cases and he's been on the court for nearly 20 years.

But we all this could be a middle finger from Obama, knowing full well how Garland will rule in a subsequent 2A case if it winds up in front of SCOTUS. Plus it could be Obama wanting to plop someone in the seat vacated by Scalia, just so his nominee can undo all of Scalia's work. The man plays games with everything. I'm willing to bet that part of the "vetting" process employed by Obama included questions such as "Do you own guns? Are you at all associated with the NRA? Do you agree with Heller and McDonald? Will you toe the line?"

 

All I need to know is Obama tapped him (maybe an inappropriate phrase). Obama is strongly anti-2A and I believe it impossible that Obama would nominate anyone who doesn't agree with his ideology. To believe otherwise means I'd have to grant O the benefit of the doubt and at this point I feel that would be completely unjustified.
Reminds me of Piglousy making the statement, "We have to pass the bill before you can know what's in it."

 

That's the biggest set back, and kike I said before. This judge has now been nominated for higher positions by 2 of the biggest anti gun presidents.

He's also from Chicago, that alone is an additional 6 strikes

 

Believe it or not while 2a is for many of us our primary concern there are many other pressing issues that the court will face. While I think there is something to be said about coveys logic above. however Obama isn't stupid. He may feel that this is his best chance to to get someone on the court and while he isn't in total agreement with him it's better then nothing , considering an uncertain out come to this presidential election. Ironically the republicans in the senate are thinking the same thing.

I am on the fence with this. I don't trust the republican establishment at all. If they had real balls and were willing to take a shot to go with what has the most upside then I would say vote him down. Then afterward they should throw all their weight behind trump as the nominee and use the issue to galvanize electorate. But they won't. They will fence ride and look out for their own interests rather then the country's.

 

Your last paragraph is spot on....the establishment needs to listen to their constituents, Trump support is proving no one likes you "good ole boys" anymore. I will place 100% blame on the Republican Establishment if Hillary gets elected. And the first time Jeb or one of the good ole' boys says ANYTHING against Hillary I hope someone walks up and backhands them across the face for getting upset about the bed they freaking made themselves.