Can’t Win? NO PROBLEM! Change The Rules!

In any contest there is a set of rules to ensure fair play and equal competition. The rules are long established and understood by both sides. But what if one side is having a problem winning under the rules? That’s when you start hearing complaints that the rules are wrong and give the other side an unfair advantage, even if they’ve won under the same rules in the past. Am I speaking of games? Of course not. I’m talking about the uncivilized blood sport of United States politics where truth is relative and the only thing that matters is winning. This is what is behind the push to pack the United States Supreme Court and eliminate the Electoral College are all about.

The latest and greatest version of Change The Rules is playing out right now with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Should she be confirmed, and the Democrats win the White House and Senate in November, they have promised to pack the court with additional liberal appointed justices to “reduce the influence of politics” in the court.  

If that rational makes any sense at all to you, you’re one of the first. Appointing left wing advocate justices to “reduce the influence of politics” is like serving donuts to your family to make their breakfast healthier. This is all because with Judge Barrett’s appointment, there will be a 5-4 majority of “conservatives” to “liberals” on the Supreme Court. 

Some argue it will actually be 6-3, but they forget Chief Justice John Roberts was already flipped during the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York case when Senate Democrats issued their “Heal Thyself” letter threatening to pack the Supreme Court if it didn’t moot the case. Chief Justice Roberts must have believed that was a one-time threat and giving in to it would protect the future of the Court. It was not. 

The whole idea of political leanings for any judge is an abomination to the bench, but that has become the norm in many areas. Extremist politicians appoint activist judges to rubber stamp their social justice agenda laws and expect them to legislate for them from the bench. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, rule of law and precedent are not considered obstacles in reshaping society to someone’s utopian vision. 

So why is changing the rules for the Supreme Court so important to them? Because all those draconian gun control laws they’ve crafted are in jeopardy.  Even with the claims that “lifesaving policies has repeatedly withstood legal challenges in the lower courts” (see previous paragraph), a hearing before Supreme Court that would actually take the Constitution into account would undeniably invalidate them. Instead of passing laws that pass Constitutional muster, you change the rules and make it so nobody can invalidate your unconstitutional laws. 

The Electoral College is facing the same threat in an attempt to change the rules to make it easier to win the White House. In short, the Electoral College was put in place to elect the President by our founders who were afraid of democracy, hence why our country is a Republic not a pure Democracy. They were concerned about “the tyranny of the majority” and created the Electoral College to preserve “the sense of the people”. 

What we see today is a balance between urban and rural areas. Urban areas are predominately liberal / Democrat and rural areas tend to be conservative / Republican. With a direct, popular vote, a handful of urban areas in our country would determine the President in every single election. 538 electors chosen by their states award all their votes according to the winner of the popular vote in their own state, except Maine and Nebraska who have a slightly different system.  

As with every election loss, we saw a renewed call to abolish the Electoral College following the Democrat candidate’s loss in the 2016 elections. The election was “stolen” and the “will of the people” was ignored because the candidate with the most votes didn’t win the most votes from the Electoral College. 

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an attempt to nullify the Electoral College without actually abolishing it. Participating states would award their Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who won the popular vote in that individual state. 

Following the 2016 elections, there were increased drives across the country that were being courted to join the Compact. Popular themes included “one person one vote” and “make your vote count”.  People were promised that politicians would be forced to campaign for votes in every state not just the most populous areas. Of course, that’s not true. 

A true popular vote election would see the candidates trying to appeal to the handful of urban population centers that currently make up the majority of the popular vote. A few swing states might be in play as a counter to an unwinnable urban center for a candidate, but the rest of the country would have no say or influence on the presidential election. Their votes, their opinions, their needs, would be too small to matter. 

So why is eliminating or nullifying the Electoral College so important to them? Because playing by the rules would require coming up with a candidate, platform and strategy that appeals to the entire country instead of one that is supported by just the handful of urban population centers where furthest-from-center message is better received.  

Rules matter, especially when it comes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When you look at the checks and balances our Founding Fathers built into the establishment of our country, understand they did this for a reason. They looked at world history and knew what had worked and what had failed. Our country is what it is today because we have held true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not in spite of it. 

When someone is advocating changing the rules of the game to benefit a political purpose, you can bet your life you will not be the one that wins. 

Vote wisely, 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #Politics, #Rules, #SCOTUS, #ElectorialCollege, #2020Elections, #VoteWisely, #EatMoreBacon, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com 

Expand vs. Defend the Second Amendment?

Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court begin this week and it is sure to be a spectacle of epic proportions. As a preview of the line of questioning we’ll see regarding the Second Amendment, the billionaire bankrolled “grass roots” “community organization” gun control group released a statement opposing Judge Barrett’s nomination on the grounds she “would dramatically expand the Second Amendment”

Dramatically expand…  A better and more accurate description would be Judge Barrett would actually defend the Second Amendment. But their description should give you some idea of how the gun control extremists view the Second Amendment as a second-class right. 

Let’s be clear about what the Second Amendment is. The twenty-seven words read: 

“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.”

The reason for the gun control extremists’ concern is quite simple and outlined in their statement. They are afraid Judge Barrett will vote to overturn their so called “gun safety” laws by “invalidating gun control measures around the country”.  

Gun control measures around the country are an utter failure and continue to target only law-abiding citizens. The cities and states with the strictest, most draconian gun control laws in this country are also the most violent, least safest places. They constantly blame other non-gun controlled areas for their own crime rates while refusing to hold the actual perpetrators of violence accountable for their actions. As always, they claim they are just one gun control law or one closed loophole away from their citizens being safe. 

The article claims that these “lifesaving policies has repeatedly withstood legal challenges in the lower courts”. 

These lower courts where they have withstood legal challenges are the ones where left extremist politicians have appointed like-minded political activist judges who will ignore the rule of law, legal precedent and rules of evidence to rubber stamp blatantly unconstitutional gun control laws. 

They also point to Judge Barrett’s “dangerous views” through her dissent on a case involving a man convicted of a “serious felony” appealing for restoration of his firearms rights. 

Of course, this “serious felony” was a single count of mail fraud and Judge Barrett’s dissent was that nonviolent felons should not be subject to the same gun restrictions that apply to violent criminals. 

Keep in mind these are the same zealots who believe the District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago decisions granted an individual right to own a firearm for the very first time in United States history.  In reality, it simply took until 2008 for a government entity to create an unconstitutional law, have that law successfully challenged AND have that case appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The individual right to keep and bear arms always existed. 

Just as the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms – it restricts the government from infringing upon what is considered a Natural Right – the Supreme Court DOES NOT have the ability to expand, dramatically or otherwise, Second Amendment rights. The court may ONLY rule on the constitutionality of existing laws that have been appealed to them. 

So, while the gun control extremists and their hand selected politicians claim the appointment of an originalist, constitutionalist jurist to the Supreme Court will somehow dramatically expand Second Amendment rights, what they are really concerned with is that their ineffective, unconstitutional laws may be overturned and simple, basic natural, constitutionally protected rights will again be available to their citizens. The People with their Second Amendment protected rights means government control over whom they chose to provide basic safety and security to will be lost forever. 

If we’ve learned anything from Justice Kavanagh’s hearings, these confirmation hearings will feature the worst behavior, accusations and insinuations politicians can muster. We’ve already seen lies, smears and exaggerations along with gloom-and-doom predictions about how our very democracy is at stake if Judge Barrett is confirmed. 

What can we do as ordinary, everyday citizens? We can let our Senators, the people WE elected to represent US, know we want them to support the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. 

If you live in a blue state like me and think your opinion won’t matter in what will undoubtedly be a party line vote, I say BUNK! If we don’t let our representatives know what we want them to do and remind them that they are accountable to us, NOT their political party, then the ONLY voice in their ear will be from the political party. It’s time to be clear and loud about what WE THE PEOPLE demand from them. 

A list of United States Senators and their contact information may be found here: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #Patriots, #Politics, #SCOTUS, #Community, #Nation, #2020Elections, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

It’s The End Of Democracy!!! (And Other Supreme Threats)

With the sudden passing of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a whole new dimension has been added to this year’s elections. Completely dismissing any resemblance of respect for the Justice’s life or service, the vile political rhetoric began almost immediately following the news of her death. Lies, exaggerations, hypocrisy, threats of violence and political consequences are the new norm – even more so, if you can believe it, than we’ve seen so far in this election.  The future of the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is being determined and the results are critical for every American.  

I’m going to start off with painfully obvious elephant in the room, politics on the bench. The whole three equal and separate branches of government thing our country was built on relied on the courts being the non-political, independent arbitrator of fact, the Constitutional and rule of law. However, that seems to be a wildly outdated notion. At the local, state and federal level, the litmus test for judges is now their political party affiliation and wiliness to rule favorably on issues brought before them by the political masters who appoint them. That is absolutely wrong. 

Judges should be guided by the Constitution and the law, period. Yes, there may be different interpretations of how the law should be applied but that’s the whole function of the appeals process up to United States Supreme Court. There should NEVER be situations like we have now where the Constitution and the rule of law is viewed through a political lens in order to progress a social agenda. 

We are being told filling the vacant judicial seat with a nominee from the current administration will be catastrophic for the nation. We’re told it will delegitimize the court itself and cause irreparable damage. Lives and liberty will be lost.  Really?? 

The SCOTUS is now pretty equally divided politically. The Chief Justice had been considered a conservative and swing vote, but it’s widely accepted now that he capitulated to the threats from the extreme left Senators last year that threated to restructure and stack the court if it didn’t “heal thyself”. 

“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The irony of course is adding a ‘conservative’ justice now would tip the court just slightly to the right, something the left just cannot tolerate. It’s not the reduction of the influence of politics they seek, it’s the reduction of the influence of politics THEY don’t agree with. Interestingly enough, it was a Second Amendment case that had the potential to define standards for Second Amendment cases around the country the brought the threats by the Senate Democrats. 

If the Senate attempts to fill the seat before the elections, we are being told there will be violence and riots like we’ve never seen before. Arson in the form of “burn Congress down” and “burn it all down”. The Democratic party has promised retaliation in the form of eliminating the filibuster in the Senate and restructuring and stacking the SCOTUS as soon as they retake the Senate, presumably to reduce the influence of politics. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has come out to say she won’t rule out impeachment of the President or the Attorney General as an option to prevent filling the seat, as well as other options. One of the more likely options is attempting to impeach Associate Justice Kavanaugh, a threat made during the “heal thyself” intimidation campaign by the Senate Democrats. 

A friend recently posted a definition that bears repeating:  Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 

Of course, hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand. The people who are demanding the seat be left vacant until after the elections are the VERY SAME ones who demanded the Senate fill a vacant seat in 2016. It seems fulfilling constitutional responsibilities is only important when it serves a certain political need. 

The political focus has already shifted to the most vulnerable votes from Republican Senators in Alaska, Maine, Utah and Arizona to block a nomination. Expect the political posturing, campaign contributions and no holds barred back room bargaining to be at historic levels in these states. 

Whomever is nominated by the President to fill this vacancy is sure to face excessively hostile confirmation hearings in the Senate. Much like the Kavanaugh hearings, we can expect the rudest, most obnoxious behavior from the Senate Democrats along with demands for delay after delay after delay for ‘just discovered’ surprise information. In the end, whenever a vote is called, expect grandstanding from both sides of the aisle. 

If you’re wondering why filling this seat is so important, simply look at how this election is being set up to be the most litigated in history. With mandated mail in voting and the potential for widespread voter fraud, the final result will very likely be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Assuming a split along Justice’s political lines, an appeal by either campaign will fail to a four-to-four split. 

Based on what has happened in the two days since Associate Justice Ginsberg passed away, what do you expect to see in the 43 days leading up to the 2020 elections?  

Vote wisely. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2020Elections, #SCOTUS, #Terrorism, #PoliticalTerrorism, #Lies, #ElectionTheater, #Corruption, #VoterFraud, #HealThyself, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #RIPRBG, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Mooting the US Supreme Court

While the Second Amendment community anxiously awaits a decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, we have to consider if a moot decision in this case will effectively moot the United States Supreme Court itself.  On the other hand, any ruling other than moot will likely see the extreme left wing of congress working to reshape the Court itself. Either way, there is a whole lot more involved in this case than just the case itself. 

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York is about the draconian Premise Licenses issued by the City of New York. It allowed Licensees to legally possess their firearms at the single permitted home or transported unloaded and locked to one of seven authorized ranges in the City. ANY transportation to ranges or homes outside the city was strictly prohibited, as was any travel not directly  between their home and the approved ranges. 

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association has been fighting this law for seven years. During this time, the City of New York has vigorously defended this law through the courts as a completely Constitutional restriction. After all, they claimed it was in the interest of “public safety” and that was all that was necessary.  That all changed once the case was granted cert (a writ of certiorari) for review by the United States Supreme Court.  Following this action, the City made a number of attempts to nullify or moot, the case including claiming they would relook at the law, amending the law administratively and finally reversing and revising the law so it gave the petitioners the ability to leave the City with their firearms. They even went so far as to have the State of New York loosen the state laws to back this up.  All of this happened at a speed unheard of in New York for pro-Second Amendment legislation. 

So that should be the end of it, right? Well, not really. There are a number of questions still remaining including the entire judicial process of how it got there. For seven years, the City of New York has been ardent in their defense of this law. Only after the highest court in the land, a court now leaning slightly more conservative, do they pull the plug and say mea culpa. Why? Because a ruling against the City of New York could have a far reaching and devastating impact on gun control legislation around the country. 

This isn’t the first time in recent history where the gun control community has decided to bite the bullet (sorry, bad pun) and accept less gun control than see a conservative leaning Supreme Court make a nationwide ruling. Washington DC became “Shall Issue” following Wrenn vs. District of Columbia where the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia court ruled the ban on open carry and “good reason” restrictions on concealed carry were unconstitutional. In order to protect the gun control laws of states like California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Connecticut, Washington DC did not pursue further appeals. Of course, DC continues to change their rules to make it extraordinarily expensive and difficult to obtain and keep a “Shall Issue” permit, but you wouldn’t expect them to just follow the law now would you? 

So what would a non- moot ruling mean? Other than getting a ruling on the original case itself, it would prevent the City and State of New York from simply reversing the law again and reinstating the exact same restrictions they had in place. But what the gun control zealots fear the most is the Court will rule favorably on firearms possession outside the home OR that Second Amendment cases must be examined under “Strict Scrutiny”. 

Some quick notes on Rational-Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny

  • Under rational-basis the government must have a legitimate interest and the law must be “rationally related” to the interest. 
  • Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must have an important interest and the law must be substantially related to the interest. 
  • Under strict scrutiny, the government must have a compelling interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to the interest. 

Note that the likelihood of a law being overturned increases as the level of scrutiny increases. 

It’s also important to note that even when the district courts have examined cases under intermediate scrutiny, they have relied on shady, unreliable and incomplete “evidence” to reach their biased opinions in Second Amendment cases. 

What was the evidence in favor of the NYC travel ban? An affidavit with nothing more than a series of conclusory statements. The entire evidence in support of the travel ban was an affidavit from a former gun-licensing official. He speculated that licensed New York City handgun owners transporting unloaded handguns outside the city might perpetrate “road rage.”  Without a strong, definitive ruling from the US Supreme Court, logic like this is what will determine whether or not you get to keep your natural rights. 

And let’s not forget the attacks on the US Supreme Court members themselves. After the disgraceful attacks during Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, the possibility of his impeachment was openly discussed. This, as well as the so-called “grassroots” movement by graduates to remove him from his position as a lecturer at Harvard Law School and other positions, is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate him into tempering his rulings. 

Even more blatant was the brief five Democratic Senators filed in response to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case itself. They argued: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” said the brief, filed in August by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The threat is crystal clear.  If the court rules against the City of New York, it will be restructured to a more liberal point of view.  If that isn’t the definition of political influence of a Supreme Court case, nothing is.  

So there you have it. If the case is ruled moot, the City of New York will be free to un-reverse their regulations and restrict law-abiding citizens in new and creative ways until another case makes it back to the US Supreme Court, just in time to be moot again. OR, the court can rule against the City of New York and establish the proper procedure for all Second Amendment cases – and risk being restructured to the point where it is no longer able to make any non-politically approved ruling. 

Who is to blame for having a non-independent judicial branch of our government?  We are… all of us citizens / voters who have allowed our representatives to make a mockery out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Who we vote for has consequences and we’ve only begun to see how bad it can be. 

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #SCOTUS, #CityofNewYork, #WashingtonDC, #Intimidation, #Politics, #GunControlFails, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com