• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The White House on Friday admitted defeat on its choice of New York lawyer Caitlin Halligan for a judgeship on a powerful appeals court, withdrawing her nomination two weeks after Senate Republicans blocked her for the second time.

President Barack Obama expressed anger that Republicans would not permit a Senate vote even as Halligan appeared to have the support of a majority of senators.

2013-03-22T225913Z_1_CBRE92L1RUT00_RTROPTP_3_USA-FISCAL-OBAMA-SHUTDOWN.JPG


"I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination," he said in a statement.

Halligan was nominated for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely considered the second most influential U.S. court after the Supreme Court.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the lone Republican to vote in Halligan's favor on March 6.

Republicans said they were concerned about Halligan's legal "activism" during her time as New York's state solicitor general from 2001 to 2006.

They zeroed in on arguments she made on behalf of the state that gun manufacturers should be held accountable for violent crimes committed with weapons they had made.

Obama is the first president in 50 years who failed to make an appointment to the court during a full term. The 11-seat court has four vacancies, a situation Obama called "unacceptable" on Friday.....snip~

Obama withdraws judicial nominee blocked twice by Republicans

woohoo.gif
A MAJOR defeat for Obama!!!!!
yes.gif
Not only is this a major defeat for Obama over his Appointment. But this a Major Victory for Pro Gun Peeps as all this time while we have all this news over the gun issue. Obama was trying to be slick.

Here it is in black and white. As Obama has been trying to get this bitch appointed to the Court for the last 2 years. Way ahead of his Public Push for Gun Control and his Assault weapon and magazine ban. Now you know just how devious this guy can be.

Although I am glad he gets this Dubious Honor of being the First President in the Last 50 years.....to FAIL in making an appointment to the Court during his Full Term. Lets give his azz a Standing Ovation.....okay maybe not. But some applause at the least!
applause.gif
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The White House on Friday admitted defeat on its choice of New York lawyer Caitlin Halligan for a judgeship on a powerful appeals court, withdrawing her nomination two weeks after Senate Republicans blocked her for the second time.

President Barack Obama expressed anger that Republicans would not permit a Senate vote even as Halligan appeared to have the support of a majority of senators.

2013-03-22T225913Z_1_CBRE92L1RUT00_RTROPTP_3_USA-FISCAL-OBAMA-SHUTDOWN.JPG


"I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination," he said in a statement.

Halligan was nominated for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely considered the second most influential U.S. court after the Supreme Court.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the lone Republican to vote in Halligan's favor on March 6.

Republicans said they were concerned about Halligan's legal "activism" during her time as New York's state solicitor general from 2001 to 2006.

They zeroed in on arguments she made on behalf of the state that gun manufacturers should be held accountable for violent crimes committed with weapons they had made.

Obama is the first president in 50 years who failed to make an appointment to the court during a full term. The 11-seat court has four vacancies, a situation Obama called "unacceptable" on Friday.....snip~

Obama withdraws judicial nominee blocked twice by Republicans

woohoo.gif
A MAJOR defeat for Obama!!!!!
yes.gif
Not only is this a major defeat for Obama over his Appointment. But this a Major Victory for Pro Gun Peeps as all this time while we have all this news over the gun issue. Obama was trying to be slick.

Here it is in black and white. As Obama has been trying to get this bitch appointed to the Court for the last 2 years. Way ahead of his Public Push for Gun Control and his Assault weapon and magazine ban. Now you know just how devious this guy can be.

Although I am glad he gets this Dubious Honor of being the First President in the Last 50 years.....to FAIL in making an appointment to the Court during his Full Term. Lets give his azz a Standing Ovation.....okay maybe not. But some applause at the least!
applause.gif


O.K., now that you've had your say speedbump, time to crawl back into your hole ...
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The White House on Friday admitted defeat on its choice of New York lawyer Caitlin Halligan for a judgeship on a powerful appeals court, withdrawing her nomination two weeks after Senate Republicans blocked her for the second time.

President Barack Obama expressed anger that Republicans would not permit a Senate vote even as Halligan appeared to have the support of a majority of senators.

2013-03-22T225913Z_1_CBRE92L1RUT00_RTROPTP_3_USA-FISCAL-OBAMA-SHUTDOWN.JPG


"I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination," he said in a statement.

Halligan was nominated for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely considered the second most influential U.S. court after the Supreme Court.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the lone Republican to vote in Halligan's favor on March 6.

Republicans said they were concerned about Halligan's legal "activism" during her time as New York's state solicitor general from 2001 to 2006.

They zeroed in on arguments she made on behalf of the state that gun manufacturers should be held accountable for violent crimes committed with weapons they had made.

Obama is the first president in 50 years who failed to make an appointment to the court during a full term. The 11-seat court has four vacancies, a situation Obama called "unacceptable" on Friday.....snip~

Obama withdraws judicial nominee blocked twice by Republicans

woohoo.gif
A MAJOR defeat for Obama!!!!!
yes.gif
Not only is this a major defeat for Obama over his Appointment. But this a Major Victory for Pro Gun Peeps as all this time while we have all this news over the gun issue. Obama was trying to be slick.

Here it is in black and white. As Obama has been trying to get this bitch appointed to the Court for the last 2 years. Way ahead of his Public Push for Gun Control and his Assault weapon and magazine ban. Now you know just how devious this guy can be.

Although I am glad he gets this Dubious Honor of being the First President in the Last 50 years.....to FAIL in making an appointment to the Court during his Full Term. Lets give his azz a Standing Ovation.....okay maybe not. But some applause at the least!
applause.gif

I think her thoughts about holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun violence sealed her fate. She must be an attorney.
 
Last edited:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The White House on Friday admitted defeat on its choice of New York lawyer Caitlin Halligan for a judgeship on a powerful appeals court, withdrawing her nomination two weeks after Senate Republicans blocked her for the second time.

President Barack Obama expressed anger that Republicans would not permit a Senate vote even as Halligan appeared to have the support of a majority of senators.

2013-03-22T225913Z_1_CBRE92L1RUT00_RTROPTP_3_USA-FISCAL-OBAMA-SHUTDOWN.JPG


"I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination," he said in a statement.

Halligan was nominated for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely considered the second most influential U.S. court after the Supreme Court.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the lone Republican to vote in Halligan's favor on March 6.

Republicans said they were concerned about Halligan's legal "activism" during her time as New York's state solicitor general from 2001 to 2006.

They zeroed in on arguments she made on behalf of the state that gun manufacturers should be held accountable for violent crimes committed with weapons they had made.

Obama is the first president in 50 years who failed to make an appointment to the court during a full term. The 11-seat court has four vacancies, a situation Obama called "unacceptable" on Friday.....snip~

Obama withdraws judicial nominee blocked twice by Republicans

woohoo.gif
A MAJOR defeat for Obama!!!!!
yes.gif
Not only is this a major defeat for Obama over his Appointment. But this a Major Victory for Pro Gun Peeps as all this time while we have all this news over the gun issue. Obama was trying to be slick.

Here it is in black and white. As Obama has been trying to get this bitch appointed to the Court for the last 2 years. Way ahead of his Public Push for Gun Control and his Assault weapon and magazine ban. Now you know just how devious this guy can be.

Although I am glad he gets this Dubious Honor of being the First President in the Last 50 years.....to FAIL in making an appointment to the Court during his Full Term. Lets give his azz a Standing Ovation.....okay maybe not. But some applause at the least!
applause.gif

Although I would prefer all nominees get a vote, her stance on holding a manufacture responsible for how something they made is used seems a little overboard. A gun is like any other tool. If we are to hold their manufactures responsible, we would have to do the same thing to a bat company if I hit some one over the head with a bat or hit someone with a hammer, the hammer manufacture would be liable. If I hit someone with my car, them the automobile manufacture is at fault. This is a bit too far out for me.
 
O.K., now that you've had your say speedbump, time to crawl back into your hole ...

Awww......don't take it so hard. Just add it with the 3 others he has taken since he started his second term. But don't you worry.....he has the concentrated powder for his boot lickers. ;)
 
I think her thoughts about holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun violence sealed her fate. She must be an attorney.

She was and out of Manhatten too......like how he tried to play the game here with the Gun Control issue? 2nd most powerful Court. Was hoping he could cut things off at the pass so to speak.

She now asked him to withdraw her nomination. Course Biden did say Obama and himself would look towards whatever measures they could. Just imagine the damage she could have done with gun issues.
 
Although I would prefer all nominees get a vote, her stance on holding a manufacture responsible for how something they made is used seems a little overboard. A gun is like any other tool. If we are to hold their manufactures responsible, we would have to do the same thing to a bat company if I hit some one over the head with a bat or hit someone with a hammer, the hammer manufacture would be liable. If I hit someone with my car, them the automobile manufacture is at fault. This is a bit too far out for me.

I am quite sure she holds the same viewpoint over guns as Obama does. Moreover Grassley was calling her an activist from the get go. Course Obama would be angry since Sessions and Grassley stepped up this time.

Although he really shouldn't be so upset since the Repubs backed his SCOTUS Appointments. Especially the foul up with Kagan.
 
I am quite sure she holds the same viewpoint over guns as Obama does. Moreover Grassley was calling her an activist from the get go. Course Obama would be angry since Sessions and Grassley stepped up this time.

Although he really shouldn't be so upset since the Repubs backed his SCOTUS Appointments. Especially the foul up with Kagan.



I may be wrong on this, but I seem to remember where some state or city passed a law holding gun manufactures responsible for how the gun was used, but the SCOTUS struck it down. I am not sure though.
 
O.K., now that you've had your say speedbump, time to crawl back into your hole ...

Come on Bori! Dont be depressed theres plenty more

where she came from!!:lol:
 
Awww......don't take it so hard. Just add it with the 3 others he has taken since he started his second term. But don't you worry.....he has the concentrated powder for his boot lickers. ;)

I think I knew you on politico.com but under a different name ... stupidity like yours is uncommon ... ironically, my response to you is contained in your post: "his second term" ... that's right, he's President of the United States, the first Democrat to be elected twice with over 50% of the vote, and he's Commander-in-Chief of the mightiest military force the world has known, he sleeps in the WH (when he's in town), you pay his salary ... and all you have are a couple of goldfish ... Now will you crawl into your little hole?
 
I may be wrong on this, but I seem to remember where some state or city passed a law holding gun manufactures responsible for how the gun was used, but the SCOTUS struck it down. I am not sure though.

I may have heard of something or seen something on that.....but I can't recall at the moment. Either way I am glad Grassley was on this with Sessions. As Sessions let the crap pass with Kagan. Obama's play got peeped for the go round with the 2nd most Powerful Court we have. Clinton had his appointee as did Bush. Looks like Obama gets the Big FAT ZERO this time round. Which even the MSM can't avoid, now.
 
A MAJOR defeat for Obama!!!!! Not only is this a major defeat for Obama over his Appointment. But this a Major Victory for Pro Gun Peeps as all this time while we have all this news over the gun issue. Obama was trying to be slick.

Here it is in black and white. As Obama has been trying to get this bitch appointed to the Court for the last 2 years. Way ahead of his Public Push for Gun Control and his Assault weapon and magazine ban. Now you know just how devious this guy can be.

Although I am glad he gets this Dubious Honor of being the First President in the Last 50 years.....to FAIL in making an appointment to the Court during his Full Term. Lets give his azz a Standing Ovation.....okay maybe not. But some applause at the least!
I cannot decide if you're being tongue-in-cheek, or serious. If it's the first, well done. If it's the second...really?

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.
 
I think I knew you on politico.com but under a different name ... stupidity like yours is uncommon ... ironically, my response to you is contained in your post: "his second term" ... that's right, he's President of the United States, the first Democrat to be elected twice with over 50% of the vote, and he's Commander-in-Chief of the mightiest military force the world has known, he sleeps in the WH (when he's in town), you pay his salary ... and all you have are a couple of goldfish ... Now will you crawl into your little hole?

Nah.....I was never on Politico.com. ever! So I doubt U knew me. As my name is the same on all sites I have been associated with. Course If I had been, I doubt you would ever forget me. :cool:

Yeah yeah and the First President to ever win a second term with less than support than he had the First time round. Also not the First Democrat to have been a Major ****-up while stepping into the lime light. But Right now.....in that Photo. Looks more, Putz like to me.

Moreover if you think I am in some hole.....just think, where that puts your Kool aid powder eating azz. I doubt you could hold on tightly enough when I flush! :lamo

ObamaEnemiesList.jpg
 
I cannot decide if you're being tongue-in-cheek, or serious. If it's the first, well done. If it's the second...really?

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.

Stopping any attorney that don't support and believe in the Constitution despite saying otherwise. Is a plus for the Country. Not a detriment. Perhaps you should read up on her and seeing how she would play with the Second Amendment and what shall not be infringed upon.
 
I cannot decide if you're being tongue-in-cheek, or serious. If it's the first, well done. If it's the second...really?

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.

That one topic tells us much about her though. First, she's anti-Second Amendment. Second, she would drive home her view by making gun manufacturers legally liable for gun violence. That proves her litigious nature and hope to use their deep pockets to drive manufacturers to ruin.
 
Nah.....I was never on Politico.com. ever! So I doubt U knew me. As my name is the same on all sites I have been associated with. Course If I had been, I doubt you would ever forget me. :cool:

Yeah yeah and the First President to ever win a second term with less than support than he had the First time round. Also not the First Democrat to have been a Major ****-up while stepping into the lime light. But Right now.....in that Photo. Looks more, Putz like to me.

Moreover if you think I am in some hole.....just think, where that puts your Kool aid powder eating azz. I doubt you could hold on tightly enough when I flush! :lamo

ObamaEnemiesList.jpg


No, you definitely were on Politico.com ... no mistaking you ... I remember throwing a stick and yelling "FETCH" and you'd take off after it ... you were so cute back then with that big stick in your mouth ... you're right, you're not easy to forget ... good to see you again ...
 
That one topic tells us much about her though. First, she's anti-Second Amendment. Second, she would drive home her view by making gun manufacturers legally liable for gun violence. That proves her litigious nature and hope to use their deep pockets to drive manufacturers to ruin.

Moreover Maggie it tells us how Obama was going to play the Court issue.
court.gif
He got Sotomayor and Kagan Appointed to the SCOTUS......so he has two there that hold his same views. Plus I put up a thread yesterday with Biden now saying because Obama lost with Feinstein in the Senate. To look to the DOJ and ATF as to how they will go after gun control. That's what I like about good ole Joe.....as he has never learned to keep his mouth shut and always lets **** slip out of the bag. ;)

This is a Whopping Defeat For Obama. As in he just got Smashed :smash:.....and for the History Books too!
book1.gif
 
Stopping any attorney that don't support and believe in the Constitution despite saying otherwise.
Can you provide evidence of this? Because the last time I checked, the Constitution says nothing about handgun manufacturers.

Perhaps you should read up on her and seeing how she would play with the Second Amendment and what shall not be infringed upon.
I did a quick Google search and came up with nothing. Could you please provide the research for me to peruse?

That one topic tells us much about her though. First, she's anti-Second Amendment.
Please explain how a lawsuit to make gun manufacturers responsible is against the 2nd Amendment.

Second, she would drive home her view by making gun manufacturers legally liable for gun violence.
She was not a candidate for Congress, she was a candidate for an Appeals court. Furthermore, the case regarding gun manufacturers dealt with illegally purchased guns, not legally purchased ones.

That proves her litigious nature
As opposed to all the other lawyers who might be candidates in the future? :lol:

You do realize how silly it is to call a lawyer "litigious", correct? :)
 
No, you definitely were on Politico.com ... no mistaking you ... I remember throwing a stick and yelling "FETCH" and you'd take off after it ... you were so cute back then with that big stick in your mouth ... you're right, you're not easy to forget ... good to see you again ...

Nah, I told ya it wasn't me cuz if ya had thrown a stick by me. I would have beat ya with it. Then afterwards played like Weird Al Yankovic.



Then made U.....Eat it!
yo2.gif
 
Can you provide evidence of this? Because the last time I checked, the Constitution says nothing about handgun manufacturers.

I did a quick Google search and came up with nothing. Could you please provide the research for me to peruse?

Please explain how a lawsuit to make gun manufacturers responsible is against the 2nd Amendment.

She was not a candidate for Congress, she was a candidate for an Appeals court. Furthermore, the case regarding gun manufacturers dealt with illegally purchased guns, not legally purchased ones.

As opposed to all the other lawyers who might be candidates in the future? :lol:

You do realize how silly it is to call a lawyer "litigious", correct? :)



Thats funny U couldn't find anything. Basic Wikipedia had this.....

Halligan has argued four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.[18]

Halligan's name also was listed in 2009 as a possible nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in a report by Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio.

Colombia.....huh? Like Obama Huh?


On May 26, 2010, legal blogger Ed Whelan reported that President Obama has placed Halligan on "the inside track" to be nominated to one of two vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[20] Then, in July 2010, the Blog of Legal Times reported that two unidentified lawyers said agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation had interviewed them regarding Halligan, which is standard for federal judicial nominees and often is precursor to a nomination.[18] On September 29, 2010, Obama nominated Halligan to replace John G. Roberts.

Halligan was renominated on June 11, 2012. Two more attempts to gain cloture on her confirmation failed, and on August 3, 2012 her nomination was again returned to the White House.[4] She was renominated on September 19, 2012.[5] Her nomination was again returned to the President on On January 2, 2013, due to the sine die adjournment of the Senate.

On January 3, 2013, she was renominated to the same office. Her nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 14, 2013, initially in a 10-8 vote, strictly along party lines.[6] However, Sen. Lindsey Graham later changed his vote to "pass," making the final committee vote 10-7.[23]

On March 4, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid again filed a motion to invoke cloture on Halligan's nomination.[24] On March 6, 2013, cloture failed by a vote of 51 ayes to 41 nays.[25][26] According to Senator Charles E. Grassley one objection by Republicans to the nominee were based on a legal theory she advanced while Solicitor General of New York that "gun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers contributed to a ‘public nuisance’ of illegal handguns in the state."[27]

On March 22, 2013, Halligan requested that Obama withdraw her nomination to the D.C. Circuit.....snip~

Caitlin Halligan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She is married to the Son of the NY Times Food Critic. That would be Falcone. Although, the next time I would look a lil harder with your searches. :lol:
 
Can you provide evidence of this? Because the last time I checked, the Constitution says nothing about handgun manufacturers.

I did a quick Google search and came up with nothing. Could you please provide the research for me to peruse?

Please explain how a lawsuit to make gun manufacturers responsible is against the 2nd Amendment.

She was not a candidate for Congress, she was a candidate for an Appeals court. Furthermore, the case regarding gun manufacturers dealt with illegally purchased guns, not legally purchased ones.

As opposed to all the other lawyers who might be candidates in the future? :lol:

You do realize how silly it is to call a lawyer "litigious", correct? :)

They are plenty of lawyers who have nothing to do with lawsuits. It's a specialty. Just like criminal law or divorce. I personally don't care whether or not her statement applied to illegally purchased guns. Unless the gun manufacturer did something wrong? For which we already have plenty of laws on the books? Suing a gun manufacturer would be as ridiculous as suing Jim Beam because someone got drunk and killed someone drunk driving. (The Dram Act notwithstanding covers those responsible quite nicely.) As to how this view is anti-Second Amendment? It's just a backdoor attack.
 
Nah, I told ya it wasn't me cuz if ya had thrown a stick by me. I would have beat ya with it. Then afterwards played like Weird Al Yankovic.



Then made U.....Eat it!
yo2.gif



definitely you ... you had difficulty with comebacks back then too ... gotta go, but I'll catch up with you later .. FETCH!
 
Thats funny U couldn't find anything. Basic Wikipedia had this.....

Halligan has argued four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.[18]

Halligan's name also was listed in 2009 as a possible nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in a report by Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio.

Colombia.....huh? Like Obama Huh?


On May 26, 2010, legal blogger Ed Whelan reported that President Obama has placed Halligan on "the inside track" to be nominated to one of two vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[20] Then, in July 2010, the Blog of Legal Times reported that two unidentified lawyers said agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation had interviewed them regarding Halligan, which is standard for federal judicial nominees and often is precursor to a nomination.[18] On September 29, 2010, Obama nominated Halligan to replace John G. Roberts.

Halligan was renominated on June 11, 2012. Two more attempts to gain cloture on her confirmation failed, and on August 3, 2012 her nomination was again returned to the White House.[4] She was renominated on September 19, 2012.[5] Her nomination was again returned to the President on On January 2, 2013, due to the sine die adjournment of the Senate.

On January 3, 2013, she was renominated to the same office. Her nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 14, 2013, initially in a 10-8 vote, strictly along party lines.[6] However, Sen. Lindsey Graham later changed his vote to "pass," making the final committee vote 10-7.[23]

On March 4, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid again filed a motion to invoke cloture on Halligan's nomination.[24] On March 6, 2013, cloture failed by a vote of 51 ayes to 41 nays.[25][26] According to Senator Charles E. Grassley one objection by Republicans to the nominee were based on a legal theory she advanced while Solicitor General of New York that "gun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers contributed to a ‘public nuisance’ of illegal handguns in the state."[27]

On March 22, 2013, Halligan requested that Obama withdraw her nomination to the D.C. Circuit.....snip~

Caitlin Halligan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She is married to the Son of the NY Times Food Critic. That would be Falcone. Although, the next time I would look a lil harder with your searches. :lol:
Nothing you posted from Wikipedia (which I read) had anything to do with any position she has taken opposite of the 2nd Amendment. Could you actually provide REAL research for me to browse?

They are plenty of lawyers who have nothing to do with lawsuits.
Of course I know this. But litigating IS one of the more visible aspects of the job, and is probably going to have been done by any judge who would be appointed to such an Appeals court. For you to argue against her on the basis of her being "litigious" (which, by the way, was her job as Soliciter General of New York) is incredibly silly.

I personally don't care whether or not her statement applied to illegally purchased guns.
It wasn't a statement, it was a court case she pursued on behalf of the state of New York, which was her job.

Unless the gun manufacturer did something wrong? For which we already have plenty of laws on the books? Suing a gun manufacturer would be as ridiculous as suing Jim Beam because someone got drunk and killed someone drunk driving. (The Dram Act notwithstanding covers those responsible quite nicely.)
We allow lawsuits for this kind of thing all the time. It's the job of the judge or jury to dismiss them.

As to how this view is anti-Second Amendment? It's just a backdoor attack.
In what way? Please describe how this has anything to do with a private citizen being able to own a gun for the purpose of assembling in a state militia for defense against foreign enemies.
 
Back
Top Bottom