The Supreme Court has decided that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution DOES apply to individuals, and is not some kind of group right, dependent on membership in a militia, etc.<\/p>\n
Unbelievably, Obama claims he agrees!<\/p>\n
So, let’s see:\u00a0 out of the last three major decisions of the Supreme Court, Obama agreed with the “conservatives” in two out of three decisions.\u00a0 These include both Roberts and Alito, both of whom Obama voted against<\/em> in the Senate confirmation process.<\/p>\n The court wants Guantanamo inmates to have full habeas corpus rights.\u00a0 Obama agrees with the left leaning judges.<\/p>\n The court decides not to let states execute child rapists, no matter how egregious the crime.\u00a0 Obama sides with<\/em> the “constructionists”, not the left leaning judges.<\/a><\/p>\n The court decides that handgun, rifle and shotgun ownership is a constitutional right<\/a>, and Obama, despite previous posititions he has taken<\/a>, now says he agrees with<\/em> the “constructionists”<\/a>, i.e., that gun ownership is an individual right, not with the left leaning judges (presumably he is still for high levels of restrictions…\u00a0 he’s not saying much about it right now….\u00a0 needs to get elected first).<\/p>\n So what can we say this means regarding Obama’s judicial philosophy?\u00a0 He seems to be agreeing with the judges he voted against, more than he disagrees with them.\u00a0 Does this mean he would appoint more judges like Roberts and Alito, as opposed to Ginsburg and Souter?<\/p>\n Nah…\u00a0 it just means he wants to get elected, and will say anything to avoid offending what he regards as key voter groups.<\/p>\n Will the lefty media (meaning nearly all the networks and major newspapers) ask him any hard questions about why he seems to be agreeing with judges he opposed?\u00a0 You’re kidding, right?<\/p>\nShare this:<\/h3>