Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

Thread: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

  1. #31
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    There's no begging the question there at all. All I'm doing is asking how suing gun manufacturers has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment as it was written. Could you please elaborate?
    Begging the question, properly understood, is asking a question which is already loaded with its presumed answer, which is exactly what you did here.

    Your view of the Second Amendment is wrong -- wrong as it's written, wrong as it was understood by the people who wrote it, and wrong as a matter of settled Constitutional law. In every legitimate way you can be wrong on the matter, you are wrong.

    You want a discussion as to why? Check the hundreds of threads in which it has already been hashed out ad nauseam. Or, you know, do some actual honest research on the issue.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #32
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    How many Liberal fruitcakes in leadership positions can one country survive?

    This one sounds just as bad as "The Wise Latina" and that other oddity that Obama appointed to the Supreme Court.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,980

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Okay, lets take the typical liberal long winded argument over semantics go with this one. While of course you focus just on the issue of gun manufacturers.
    Considering this is the argument you're making against her, yes, I think it's important to address the veracity of your statement.

    Provide a link that she is in favor of the second Amendment.
    Okay

    Quote Originally Posted by Halligan Hearing

    Senator Grassley. Well, that is pretty clear. So I will not have to follow-up with another question I had on that subject. On the Second Amendment, in 2003, you gave a speech expressing concern about Federal legislation to limit the liability of gun manufacturers. You said, ``Such an action would likely cutoff at the pass any attempt by states to find solutions through the legal system or their own legislatures that might reduce gun crime.'' Many who oppose the Second Amendment rights made similar arguments against after the Supreme Court decided Heller. Do you personally agree that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to keep and bear arms?
    Ms. Halligan. The Supreme Court has been clear about that. Yes, it does protect individual rights to bear arms, Senator.
    Senator Grassley. And would you say that making it a fundamental right under McDonald was something you agree with, as well?
    Ms. Halligan. That is clearly what the Supreme Court held and I would follow that precedent, Senator.
    - CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
    Are we happy now?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Begging the question, properly understood, is asking a question which is already loaded with its presumed answer, which is exactly what you did here.
    I'm fully aware of what begging the question is, and my statement did not engage in the fallacy at all.

    Your view of the Second Amendment is wrong -- wrong as it's written, wrong as it was understood by the people who wrote it, and wrong as a matter of settled Constitutional law. In every legitimate way you can be wrong on the matter, you are wrong.
    Completely inaccurate, but for argument's sake, let's say the 2nd Amendment is as decided in DC vs. Haller.

    How did a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for illegally purchased weapons violate the 2nd Amendment's protection of individuals to legally own a gun for their own protection?

    You want a discussion as to why? Check the hundreds of threads in which it has already been hashed out ad nauseam. Or, you know, do some actual honest research on the issue.
    I'm new here and you're the one making the claim, not me. Please support your statement that this lawsuit, in which this woman was doing her duty to the state of New York (regardless of her personal opinions on the subject) show Halligan to be against the 2nd Amendment.

  4. #34
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I'm fully aware of what begging the question is, and my statement did not engage in the fallacy at all.
    Yes, you did, when you framed your question so as to dismiss all notions of the Second Amendment save for the one you wanted.


    Completely inaccurate
    No, 100% accurate. I see you're clinging to your agenda-driven falsehoods.


    but for argument's sake, let's say the 2nd Amendment is as decided in DC vs. Haller.

    How did a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for illegally purchased weapons violate the 2nd Amendment's protection of individuals to legally own a gun for their own protection?
    I am not concerned with those details. I commented only on your dishonest attempt to couch the debate in your erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment. Your error and your dishonesty are my entire concern.


    I'm new here and you're the one making the claim, not me. Please support your statement that this lawsuit, in which this woman was doing her duty to the state of New York (regardless of her personal opinions on the subject) show Halligan to be against the 2nd Amendment.
    I made no such statement, thus confirming that you are indeed exceptionally dishonest, making the actual dishonesty, as opposed to simple uninformed error, of your questions and interpretation of the 2A clear as day.

    If you are right, you shouldn't have to lie.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #35
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You're this excited that one political party was so determined to bring our country to a standstill? You're happy one political party blocked a simple vote to help replace a vacancy in an appeals court? Republicans didn't "win", they made sure everyone lost. And finally, this woman you do not know at all is a "bitch" just because of her opinion on one topic?

    It's a mentality like yours which prevent things from being accomplished in this country, to better life for everyone.
    Are you talking about the Democrats who have constipated the Senate for the last few years? Or are you blaming the Republicans for taking a principled stand against those who would initiate policies which will destroy the country?
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  6. #36
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,980

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Yes, you did, when you framed your question so as to dismiss all notions of the Second Amendment save for the one you wanted.
    I framed my question in relation to the 2nd Amendment as it was written. I then asked how that lawsuit impeded upon the 2nd Amendment as written.

    No, 100% accurate. I see you're clinging to your agenda-driven falsehoods.
    No, I just actually read the 2nd Amendment and noted, in particular, the section about a "well regulated militia".

    But let's not quibble about this. As you said, and I have no reason to disbelieve, there are many threads on that topic. Let's address what the topic of this thread is.

    I am not concerned with those details.
    Those details are the entire point of this thread.

    I commented only on your dishonest attempt to couch the debate in your erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment. Your error and your dishonesty are my entire concern.
    So then you hijacked a thread to go off-topic, in an attempt to start an argument over a topic which has been argued for 40+ years. That was your contribution to this debate. And by the way, my statement was neither dishonest nor erroneous. It was asking how a lawsuit was in violation of the 2nd Amendment as it was written. And to prove it was not dishonest, I was more than willing to discuss alternate interpretations of the Second Amendment.

    No matter how you look at it, your participation in this thread has been a waste of everyone's time, according to your own admission.

    I made no such statement
    My apologies. I assumed you came into this thread with the honest intention of contributing to the thread topic. My mistake for thinking you were here to actually further the discussion, and not to hijack a thread with an off-topic discussion which has been debated ad nauseum for 40+ years. I'll be sure to note your usernname, to avoid ever again thinking you wish to engage in the topic of the thread. I'd hate to mistake your position a second time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    Are you talking about the Democrats who have constipated the Senate for the last few years? Or are you blaming the Republicans for taking a principled stand against those who would initiate policies which will destroy the country?
    I'm talking about any time one party prevents a simple majority vote to allow our country to proceed. This time it happened to be the Republicans doing it. The next time it could be the Democrats.

  7. #37
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I framed my question in relation to the 2nd Amendment as it was written. I then asked how that lawsuit impeded upon the 2nd Amendment as written.
    No, you didn't. The 2A doesn't say "for the purpose of assembling in a state militia for defense against foreign enemies," nor did anyone who wrote it say it meant that. You're lying. You are very dishonest, the latest in a long line 'round here.

    If you need to lie as often as you do, it says quite a bit about the confidence you have in your own positions.

    No, I just actually read the 2nd Amendment and noted, in particular, the section about a "well regulated militia".

    But let's not quibble about this. As you said, and I have no reason to disbelieve, there are many threads on that topic. Let's address what the topic of this thread is.

    Those details are the entire point of this thread.

    So then you hijacked a thread to go off-topic, in an attempt to start an argument over a topic which has been argued for 40+ years. That was your contribution to this debate. And by the way, my statement was neither dishonest nor erroneous. It was asking how a lawsuit was in violation of the 2nd Amendment as it was written. And to prove it was not dishonest, I was more than willing to discuss alternate interpretations of the Second Amendment.

    No matter how you look at it, your participation in this thread has been a waste of everyone's time, according to your own admission.

    My apologies. I assumed you came into this thread with the honest intention of contributing to the thread topic. My mistake for thinking you were here to actually further the discussion, and not to hijack a thread with an off-topic discussion which has been debated ad nauseum for 40+ years. I'll be sure to note your usernname, to avoid ever again thinking you wish to engage in the topic of the thread. I'd hate to mistake your position a second time.
    If you don't want to be called on the dishonest way in which you conduct "debate," then I suggest you not post here.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Considering this is the argument you're making against her, yes, I think it's important to address the veracity of your statement.

    Okay


    - CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
    Are we happy now?
    I'm fully aware of what begging the question is, and my statement did not engage in the fallacy at all.

    Completely inaccurate, but for argument's sake, let's say the 2nd Amendment is as decided in DC vs. Haller.

    How did a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for illegally purchased weapons violate the 2nd Amendment's protection of individuals to legally own a gun for their own protection?


    I'm new here and you're the one making the claim, not me. Please support your statement that this lawsuit, in which this woman was doing her duty to the state of New York (regardless of her personal opinions on the subject) show Halligan to be against the 2nd Amendment.

    U were saying now?

    Right.....she would follow the precedent of the law. Which like I stated from the get go. She says she does. Talk and actions are two different things. Now as a Private attorney show the link where she has been about the 2nd amendment.

    Barack Obama nominated Caitlin Halligan on September 29, 2010. She now serves as the General Counsel for the New York County District Attorney’s Office. This seat has been vacant for over six years.

    A strong advocate of affirmative action, this lawyer is a radical opponent of the Second Amendment! She has demonstrated that her positions are “activist” oriented!

    According to the Judicial Action Group:

    A thorough examination of Ms. Halligan’s record clearly demonstrates she does not meet the standard appropriate for that of a judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Her appellate briefs in multiple cases on a variety of issues repeatedly petition courts to change public policy and law through activist decisions.”

    Since this was highlighted by some during the nomination process, she has unsuccessfully tried to “distance herself” from that quote. But her failure to provide substantive evidence that would clarify her statements is harmful to the United States, especially to gun owners.

    U.S. Senator Tom Coburn asked Ms. Halligan about her views about tort liability for gun manufacturers. Her response: “I am not familiar with the laws of any other state or federal law, and have no basis for an opinion regarding any such claims that might be brought in other jurisdictions.” However, for a person “not familiar” with the law, how could she have filed an amicus brief on the exact same subject in the Second Court?

    The Washington Times reports: “…numerous discrepancies in Halligan’s hearing before the United States Judiciary Committee. The controversy is over a 2004 New York City bar association report on enemy combatants, which concluded that indefinite detention during wartime is unconstitutional. Ms. Halligan was listed as a signatory on the document but told Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican that she first ‘became aware of the existence of the report’ last summer.”

    The Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association have opposed the nomination of Caitlin Halligan.

    Mr. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action wrote: “The NRA’s opposition is based on Ms. Halligan’s attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

    John Velleco, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, wrote: “Halligan has proven to us that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.”

    The U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) writes: “Ms. Halligan’s well-documented record as a committed advocate of extreme liberal positions raises questions about whether she would be a fair and impartial jurist. These concerns are compounded by the fact that Ms. Halligan has been nominated to one of the most important courts in the United States.”

    The Republican National Lawyers Association officially condemns the nomination of Ms. Halligan. Their precise call in a letter sent to Congressional leaders on November 2 is: “The Republican National Lawyers Association opposes the confirmation of Caitlin Halligan to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit and urges Senators to oppose her nomination.”

    “Ms. Halligan has provided answers to the (Congressional) Committee that demonstrate both a disturbing lack of candor and an uninformed view of legislation that she, through her public positions, deemed unconstitutional.”

    “…Her record reveals numerous instances where she has advanced an ‘evolving or living constitution’ methodology.”

    The Republican National Lawyers Association letter went on to reprimand Ms. Halligan to the Congressional leadership: “Ms. Halligan’s statements regarding judicial philosophy also raise concerns about her candor. At her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and in response to questions for the record, she indicated that judges should look to original intent when interpreting the Constitution. She explained in response to a written question from Senator Grassley: ‘A judge should look to domestic legal sources in interpreting the United States Constitution – specifically, the text of the Constitution, the original intent of the framers, and governing precedent.”

    Anti-Gun Caitlin Halligan Court Confirmation Today

    Hows that Happiness you were talkin about now. U happy yet or do you need to see more my liberal brutha.

  9. #39
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,099

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    "McCONNELL: It is highly unlikely any of these district judges are not going to be confirmed. We’ve done a number of them this year. We’ve done seven this year. District judges are almost never defeated. This is just a very transparent attempt to try to slam dunk the minority and make them look like they are obstructing things they aren’t obstructing. We object to that. We don’t think that meets the standard of civility that should be expected in the Senate. And, so, any effort to make the minority look bad or attempt to slam dunk them that is sort of manufactured as this is is gonna, of course, be greeted with resistance."

    Link



    Republicans aren't playing ball, they are only there to prevent any slam dunks.



    And on the replay they will almost always appear unsportsmanlike, another nail in the parties coffin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    There were, by most estimates, 500 Nazis in Charlottesville. One of them went homicidal. Not all Nazis are violent extremists. You are trying to rationalize your hatred and it's simply not rational.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    as I noted, its better that 10 nutjobs get guns than one good person be wrongly disarmed.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, you didn't. The 2A doesn't say "for the purpose of assembling in a state militia for defense against foreign enemies," nor did anyone who wrote it say it meant that. You're lying. You are very dishonest, the latest in a long line 'round here.

    If you need to lie as often as you do, it says quite a bit about the confidence you have in your own positions.



    If you don't want to be called on the dishonest way in which you conduct "debate," then I suggest you not post here.

    Indeed.....note how he started off as to nothing could be found thru searches concerning Caitlin Halligan.

    My, my, my, for someone who was allegedly not known.....there sure is a whole a lot of **** out there on the Woman. But as you can see according to Libs......she suppose to be Pro-gun.....of course she is not. Which is why Obama picked her in the first place.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •