Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers 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.
Emma Brown
July 6, 2018
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’
[I’m reminded of something attributed to Barry Goldwater:
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
But that leaves the claim of “extremism” unchallenged. Adhering to the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution cannot legitimately be considered extremist. Those who advocate for the departure from the letter and intent of the Constitution are the extremists.
And a final note, Supreme Court appointees who adhere to the letter and intent of the Constitution is one of the primary reasons why I and tens of millions of other gun owners voted against Hillary Clinton. If this is who President Trump nominates to fill Kennedys seat, then thank you President Trump.—Joe]
Interesting. On the surface Hardiman would seem to be an exceptionally good choice. The ability to begin attacking the (in my “extremist” view) unconstitutional gun laws in the Progressive States would be… I’m not sure I can properly say how gratifying that would be.
Jeff B.
“Moderate:” Someone who agrees that the plain written text of the Constitution means something halfway between what it actually says and what the Left wants it to mean.
“Extremist:” Someone who believes that the Constitution means what it actually says.
This Emma Goldberg/ Brown person wants to interpret the legalese of the Constitution in a completely different way than she would want the legalese of her mortgage contract interpreted if the Court were to interpret it in a manner harmful to her interests.
She’d raise holy hell if the Supreme Court were to interpret a clause “Wrongly”, and I’m sure she has of late. I’m sure also she has a “resist’ sticker on her car alongside an “I’m with her” sticker.
I am reminded of a statement from many years ago. Unfortunately I’ve forgotten who made it. “If the ACLU interpreted the second amendment with the zeal that they interpret the first, fourth, and fifth, machine gun ownership would be mandatory for all citizens.”
Prof. Randy Barnett has an excellent analysis of the Constitution where he approaches it from the point of view of contract law. There, the meaning of a contract is the ordinary meaning of the words to a reasonable person, at the time the contract was signed.
Then all you have to do is recognize that the Constitution is the “Contract with America”.
“Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate…”
Alert! Alert! Error! Error!
No, Young Grasshopper; one is either an advocate of liberty or one is an enemy of liberty. Let us fix the sentence then;
“Constitutional-law scholars, both advocates of and enemies of liberty…”
Also, “moderate” and “reasonable” are used to represent the synthesis that the criminal class desires as the outcome of the clash between thesis and antithesis.
Thesis; gun laws should remain as they are,
Antithesis; all guns should be banned.
Synthesis; we’ll meet in the middle. “Give and take”, you know. Don’t be an extremist.
Wait a bit, find another shooting to hype up in the media, repeat.
Of course it only goes one way; toward less freedom, and more control and coercion. That’s the only “reasonable” direction. If the “compromise” (the synthesis) ever moves in the direction of liberty, even just a little bit, it’s now “extremism”.
Other slander terms for the advocacy of liberty are;
Closed-mindedness
Conservatism
Backwardness
Old fashioned
Stubbornness
Fascist
The last one, Fascism, is really interesting, and clever. It’s clever because it’s true; compromise between liberty and total slavery is indeed Fascism. We’ve lived in a fascist country for generations now. It’s really interesting because the communists are calling the conservatives Fascists, not because they think conservatives are too authoritarian, but because they’re not authoritarian enough! And so we are now in a 1930s European-style conflict between various styles and flavors of authoritarianism, and liberty is off the table.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It’s a game of deception, with tyranny as the end goal. Don’t ever fall for it. It’s a very old game too, and so it should be instantly recognized by anyone with their eyes open.
Republicans and the NRA always play along with the deception. They’ve been doing it for so long that one can only conclude that they’re in on it, that there’s collusion with the deceivers at some level (whether planned and fully cognizant,
or whether inadvertent, it doesn’t matter; the result is the same).
And so we continue the Long March toward totalitarianism. Two steps toward mass destruction, one step back, one forward, one back, two more forward, and so on. Why do we do it? Because we’re fed a range of choices which has liberty at one extreme end, with “endless possibilities” (death, actually) toward the other end, and we’re all just dumb enough to fall for it.
And once again, as always, we find direct references to the current conversation in the Bible;
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. James 1:25 (KJV)
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. James 2:12. (KJV)
Don’t ever wonder why the left hates the Bible, or why they go apoplectic over the Ten Commandments– Their aim is to violate every one of them to the greatest extent possible, and so far they’ve done an excellent job. Go on; go through the list, one by one, and see.
But who cares about THAT stuff anymore, right? Amiright?
What have we done by comparison? Well as long as we’re playing their game, and we are, then there’s nothing we can do. Sure, we can make noise and spend money and what not, and get all fired up emotional, and it’s all part of their script.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Sean D Sorrentino | The View From North Central Idaho