Daily Archives: 20 May 2016

Clinton Doesn’t Like It

Posted on by
Reply

Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s list of folks he’d like to see on the Supreme Court, that is.

Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman has released a scathing statement in response to likely rival Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court picks.

John Podesta says Trump’s list of 11 Supreme Court candidates includes “no people of color, but does include a judge who upheld a law requiring doctors to use scare tactics to impede reproductive rights and another judge who equated homosexual sex to bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.”

I’ll ignore the naked distortions that only the Left can make.  Never mind, on the other hand, that skin color confers no special skill or aptitude—or even empathy.  If there are no blacks or Hispanics on the list, maybe it’s because there are too few who are qualified.  Which only means the Left needs to get out of the way of our children’s education so we can get more qualified.

In the end, if Clinton or any of her fellow Progressives and Socialists don’t like the list, it can’t be all bad.

Another Right Answer by a Federal Trial Court

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering DC police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

US District Judge Richard J Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment….

And another protection of our individual liberties.  Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says (again, for those of you steady readers of this blog):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice that (again…): there’s not a syllable of permission for the Federal government to dictate to us citizens what our purpose in keeping and bearing may be.  The Federal government has no legitimate interest in our purpose, and so any demand that we satisfy the Federal government of our good reason is not merely unconstitutional, it’s dishonestly so.

We citizens do, through our government, restrict convicted felons’ right to keep and bear.  It stops there, though: unless the Federal government can show that a citizen has been convicted of a felony, it cannot further restrict.

Full stop.