It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Of course, I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I've tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you that. Unless you think I'm a fool."
Originally posted by charles1952
Every Justice has his own philosophy of the Constitution. President's always ask judicial nominees about it in depth. The President tends to appoint Justices who have a similar judicial philosophy. Some Justices take the Constitution more or less as it was originally written and intended, others like to play around with it.
Scalia is just saying what everybody has known for years and years, he is more of an originalist than a player, and he'd like to see another originalist take his place. I'm missing the big problem here.
I see this more as a fall back position to be used when the 2nd Amendment gets destroyed.
If the Judges do realize this, which I assume they must, then they also know that any attempt by the Congress to infringe upon or strongly regulate the right of the People to keep and bear arms naturally leads to the Congress inhibiting its own authority to raise and support Armies and the Presidents responsibility to execute his office.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by AwakeinNM
It seemed to me, after reading the article, that he was saying there would be debates in the future about what limitations could be placed on the Second Amendment. As much as I don't like it, I have to agree with him. One of his poiints was based on "bear arms." He seemed to think that meant "If you can't carry it, you can't have it." That may be wrong, but I can see it as the focus of a debate. Certainly there are restrictions on gun ownership now, I would suspect the issues aren't permanently settled.
As one example, does a citizen have a right to mount a firearm on a drone? (Assuming it can be fired remotely.) I don't know, I've never thought about it, but it will come up some time.
Scalia, or whoever, won't be able to control the President's choice much at all. The best he can do is to retire when there is a President in office that may think the way he does, then cross his fingers and hope.