John Paul Stevens was a "moderate" appointed by Gerald Ford. This article illustrates that he was anything but moderate. And it underscores the fact that we need to stack the court with as many rock-ribbed conservatives as possible.

https://www.nraila.org/article...mark-heller-decision

------

Retired Anti-Gun Justice Reveals Attempts to Thwart Landmark Heller Decision

Few Supreme Court justices have been as avowedly opposed to the Second Amendment as John Paul Stevens, who retired from the high court in June 2010. Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent to the landmark decision of District of Columbia v. Heller and to its follow-up, McDonald v. Chicago. He then continued to advocate against those cases even after his retirement, including in a book proposing amendments to the Constitution and in a high-profile editorial published in the New York Times urging repeal of the Second Amendment. Now Stevens is publishing a memoir and has revealed what were by his own account extraordinary efforts to try to thwart the outcome of the Heller decision or at least to limit the scope of the Second Amendment’s individual right.

According to a New York Times article about the upcoming book – tentatively titled “The Making of a Justice: My First 94 Years” – Stevens considers Heller one of the three worst decisions the Supreme Court issued during his nearly 45 year tenure as an associate justice. Stevens faulted both the reasoning of the decision and what he called “its actual practical impact by increasing the use of guns in the country … ."

Yet Stevens admitted he was advocating against the decision before it was even available for the justices themselves to review, telling the Times he circulated his own “probable dissent” five weeks before Justice Antonin Scalia released his draft majority opinion. According to the Times article, Stevens “could not recall ever having done anything like that.” Nevertheless, he told the Times, “I thought I should give it every effort to switch the case before it was too late.”

Fortunately, Stevens’s opinion proved less persuasive to a majority of his colleagues than did Justice Scalia’s.

Nevertheless, Stevens credits himself with getting the crucial swing vote for the Heller opinion – now retired Justice Anthony Kennedy – to demand some “important changes” to limit the opinion’s scope. These included a litany of existing types of gun control upon which the opinion should not be taken to “cast doubt.” Specifically, the opinion mentions “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Of course, the Heller case itself did not actually concern any of those types of laws, focusing instead on D.C.’s handgun ban and its requirement to store firearms in an unusable state. Thus, the legal significance of that passage is debatable. A number of courts have, in fact, examined such laws in light of the Second Amendment and occasionally have found applications of those laws invalid. On the other hand, judges have also used that passage of Heller as an invitation to uphold sweeping prohibitions and even to exempt other types of gun control from the Second Amendment’s scope by analogy.

In any case, not only was Stevens wrong about the meaning of the Second Amendment, he’s also wrong that recognition of the individual right has led to negative effects from “increasing gun use in this country.” Criminals obviously weren’t waiting on word from the Supreme Court when deciding whether or how to use guns to prey upon their victims. Meanwhile, most Americans who exercise their Second Amendment rights continue to do so responsibly, as they have all along.

The Times article is revealing, however, in depicting the obsession that some elites have with suppressing the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans. It also underscores the importance of what President Trump has accomplished, and continues to pursue, through his appointment of federal judges who respect the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, including the individual right to keep and bear arms.


.

The traitors need to be identified and weeded out while they are still riding the bench. Yes, they may hold lifetime appointments, but in litigation with 2A components a solid case can be made for demanding a different judge, or retrial.

He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

He failed miserably.

I have to keep wondering whether those people like this "retired judge" are so freaking stupid that they cannot seem to understand, " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Wonder if his sudden appearance as anything to do with selling his book. Naw, not really wondering. Firmly believe it. Those lunatics will do anything, say anything, to advance their agenda, especially if they can further enrich themselves at the same time.

True Leftists/Liberals never allow anything (like the Constitution) to stand in their way. Oaths to uphold the Constitution can be taken, and secretly DISAVOWED. The exact same dichotomy exists with Muslims, which enables them to lie/cheat/kill/fornicate/conceal their true intentions.

It is called al-Taqiyya. It means deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.

Read about it here: http://www.muslimfact.com/bm/t...ievers-and-bri.shtml

What a POS.

Pro tip- SC justices are nothing but lawyers & politicians. They have no more right to deny me my personal freedoms than any other man. They attend big schools, sit in their ivory towers, & are far removed from the average American.

These socialist elitist have fucked us over so much already; Obamacare, 4th Amendment rights, etc.

If these jackwads ever end the 2A, I hope hands are spit upon, & the black flag is hoisted.

Ease up, Johnny Rambo. Clarification and interpretation of the Constitution is necessary at times. There's no way around it. If the SCOTUS did not exist, then some other entity would have to exist in its stead.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The traitors need to be identified and weeded out while they are still riding the bench. Yes, they may hold lifetime appointments, but in litigation with 2A components a solid case can be made for demanding a different judge, or retrial.

Explain that "solid case" for weeding out or demanding a different judge, please? Judges have different opinions about the law. That is part of the deal - you don't get to eliminate a judge because he doesn't agree with you.

I am absolutely pro-2d amendment, but what you say doesn't seem to make sense.

These are politicians wearing robes.

jhe - I'm not a litigator however, would not a judge's public writings or statements be admissible as a part of a motion to recuse as evidence of a judge's inability to be impartial, or by creating an appearance of impartiality?

I recognize that it is more favored in the judicial system to entertain claims of bias against a party, rather than bias against subject matter, but shouldn't a smart litigator still make the argument?

quote:

John Paul Stevens was a "moderate" appointed by Gerald Ford. This article illustrates that he was anything but moderate. And it underscores the fact that we need to stack the court with as many rock-ribbed conservatives as possible.

Yep.

There are no "moderates", either on the Court or in Congress. Anyone who claims to be a "moderate" is either so malleable as to be without conviction or is throwing up a smoke screen to hide what he/she actually thinks or believes. A "moderate" is someone who wants to be loved by all, and reads his own press clippings. He will do anything for positive press and will therefore move to the left because that's applauded by the press.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
jhe - I'm not a litigator however, would not a judge's public writings or statements be admissible as a part of a motion to recuse as evidence of a judge's inability to be impartial, or by creating an appearance of impartiality?

I recognize that it is more favored in the judicial system to entertain claims of bias against a party, rather than bias against subject matter, but shouldn't a smart litigator still make the argument?

I don't think a judge's general opinion about a subject can get him recused. He clearly can't have a preconceived idea about how a particular case (set of facts) should come out, but judges have general ideas about what the law means in almost every instance. No judge is a blank slate. Having an opinion about the law, in general, is permissible.

Think about it: if that were not true any litigant who had an idea that a judge was hostile to its view of the law, and could back it up, could bounce that judge from the case. And so could the other side. You could never get a case tried or heard on appeal if you were entitled to strike a judge because you didn't like her view on the law.

There was a bankruptcy judge I knew of. He had a view of a particular facet of the law that was contrary to many other judges, but which had not been opined on by our circuit court. His view was disadvantageous to banks, but just because banks didn't like his view didn't mean they could get him off their cases. He was entitled to hold and apply his view of the law until the 5th Circuit or the Supremes told him he was wrong. And he did.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The traitors need to be identified and weeded out while they are still riding the bench. Yes, they may hold lifetime appointments, but in litigation with 2A components a solid case can be made for demanding a different judge, or retrial.

Explain that "solid case" for weeding out or demanding a different judge, please? Judges have different opinions about the law. That is part of the deal - you don't get to eliminate a judge because he doesn't agree with you.

I am absolutely pro-2d amendment, but what you say doesn't seem to make sense.

As Artie suggests, a judge making it known that he will not be following the constitution should absolutely open the door. Due process is not due process when the sitting judge has openly given up the impartiality demanded by his position. I’m not suggesting it would be an easy process, only that it is a possibility when someone’s rights or freedoms mandated by the constitution are on the line.

Judges are recused all the time when a conflict of interest is apparent; why should this be any different?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

quote:

Stevens considers Heller one of the three worst decisions the Supreme Court issued during his nearly 45 year tenure as an associate justice.

But I'm sure he thinks Roe V. Wade (probably the biggest failure by the court in a couple generations) is a terrific decision by the high court. Personally, I think 'all' of these judges have far too high an opinion of their own intellect, opinion, and importance.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

As Artie suggests, a judge making it known that he will not be following the constitution should absolutely open the door. Due process is not due process when the sitting judge has openly given up the impartiality demanded by his position. I’m not suggesting it would be an easy process, only that it is a possibility when someone’s rights or freedoms mandated by the constitution are on the line.

Judges are recused all the time when a conflict of interest is apparent; why should this be any different?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

You make the assumption that the view of the Constitution you favor is the right view. These cases are all about what the Constitution means, so that is in play. If the judge differs from you, that doesn't mean he is wrong.

The statute you cite has nothing in it which applies to your argument. It concerns cases where the judge knows the litigants, has personal knowledge of the specific facts of the case, has a financial interest in the case (is a stockholder, for example). Nothing in the statute addresses a judge with an opinion on the law to be decided or applied.

Having an opinion about the law (and which differs from yours) is not a conflict of interest. Having an opinion on the law is not impartiality. As I noted above, if you could object to a judge because you disagree with his views, we couldn't hold trials or appeals.

Thanks jhe. That is generally what my brief research on the subject showed, but you explained it far better than the published sources.

I recognize the problem; but it appears that the 2A is a particularly ripe area. I bang on a bit about this because (well, this is a gun forum) but more because of the seeming hostility of judges to apply Supreme Court precedent in this case. Ordinarily, a court or judge will take the logical inferences from a Supreme Court decision and they will infer reasonable corollaries from the decision. Many judges seem to be unwilling to apply the reasonable corollaries to the recent Supreme Court decisions, notably Heller.

I would argue that this particular sub header would apply- he is clearly showing a bias-

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding

In any case, what difference does my opinion make? I thought the goal would be to argue constitutional fact. 2A is very clear; his “opinion” does not represent lawful fact. It reflects his personal bias. I imagine a lawyer would have large stones to challenge the judge, but omelets require egg breaking.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I have to keep wondering whether those people like this "retired judge" are so freaking stupid that they cannot seem to understand, " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

They know what the 2d amendment says and they know what it means. They just don’t like it because they are STATISTS who despise - with every ounce of their being - the armed citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Thanks jhe. That is generally what my brief research on the subject showed, but you explained it far better than the published sources.

I recognize the problem; but it appears that the 2A is a particularly ripe area. I bang on a bit about this because (well, this is a gun forum) but more because of the seeming hostility of judges to apply Supreme Court precedent in this case. Ordinarily, a court or judge will take the logical inferences from a Supreme Court decision and they will infer reasonable corollaries from the decision. Many judges seem to be unwilling to apply the reasonable corollaries to the recent Supreme Court decisions, notably Heller.

Agreed as to some judges' unwillingness to extend Heller to anything beyond its facts. (Although, to be fair, Heller explicitly left a lot of things undecided.) What we need to hope for is that the Supremes decide some more cases and provide more guidance, especially on the large areas Heller doesn't touch. Then it will become harder for the lower courts to strike out on their own or even to swim against what appears to be the tide.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I would argue that this particular sub header would apply- he is clearly showing a bias-

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding

In any case, what difference does my opinion make? I thought the goal would be to argue constitutional fact. 2A is very clear; his “opinion” does not represent lawful fact. It reflects his personal bias. I imagine a lawyer would have large stones to challenge the judge, but omelets require egg breaking.

That part of the statute talks about "bias or prejudice concerning a PARTY." A party to the litigation not as to what the law is. As in, a party is the judge's former business partner, or his son. You can't ignore the part about "concerning a party."

And again, you think the 2A very clearly means what you think it means. (And I probably agree with what you think.) That isn't a "lawful fact," that is an opinion about what the law is. Facts are things like "the stop light was red" or "Jim has blue eyes."

Other people have equally strongly held views about what the 2A means, and until the Supreme Court rules on those particular questions, the answer is not decided and is not clear. So, again, that a judge has an opinion about the 2A that is not consistent with our views is not a conflict of interest or a bias.

And again, can't you see that if the litigants can object to a judge on this basis that there can NEVER be any decisions made in questions where the law is not settled or its application is certain? There are always questions of what the law is in any litigation. So someone will ALWAYS be able to say that the judge doesn't agree with me, so he must be biased and therefore removed. That cannot be the rule, because if it is, the justice system would literally be paralyzed.

I have a hearing tomorrow in which the application of contract law is a major point of dispute. That is to say, what contract law is. Both sides are equally sure it is right. I can't object to my judge because I think he might not agree with me. Neither can the other side. And if we could, one of us would object, and the case would never be decided.

I won't come back to these points. We are chasing our own tails now.