The liberals on the Supreme court should have kept their powder dry

[The Straight Story]

5-4 on the gun vote - and this will be used against us this election: if Obama wins then he will change the balance of the supreme court, and today was proof that we just barely missed having our right to own guns taken away....

Why didn't the liberals we have on the supreme court just vote with the majority? Shouldn't they too have caved as dems in congress have at times in an effort to win yet another election (with a promise of more liberal days ahead if we can just win one more election)?

I guess sometimes people just go with what they believe in (even if some see it as wrong, and I actually side with the majority ruling in this case myself) no matter what others may think.

I wasn't consulted, I didn't need to even bother calling the court, because I knew they would vote their conscience on the matter and not pay attention to what others thought. They were hired to do a job and did it.

Would that our own political leaders did the same. Instead of worrying about the middle or who they might offend they actually vote on what they believe is right (which is what they usually campaign on to us and why we vote for them).

I'll accept that some liberals in power don't always vote the way I want them to, but when the big issues come along and they want to 'keep the powder dry' in hopes of getting more votes in the future I have to wonder - are they there to do a job for us or just there for themselves?

They keep trying to play the game - but in reality it is no game. We have people without health care, soldiers dying in an unjust war, families torn apart, folks doing all they can just to make the rent and to hell with insurance and food because they can barely afford it, and so on.

The powder isn't dry anymore - it is too wet to fire from the tears of those needing help. Would that those needing help were big companies, for then our politicians would be lining up to pass bills to help them out.

At some point you just have to make a stand and to hell with what others think about it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I am so sick of the frickin powder!

[AndyTiedye]

3. Don't Get Too Excited About the Powder

[katandmoon]

2. Fuck guns

I wish they would take them away from everybody.

[The Straight Story]

5. So only people in government should have them?

Ok......

[virginia mountainman]

6. Do YOU, wish to come and get mine???

IF not YOU, than WHO???

Here is ONE of mine right now, resting on the couch..



My thinks, you can wish in one hand, and crap in the other....and see which gets filled first. I can assure you that the vast majority of gun owners, will NOT, "give them" to you, or anyone else.

That rifle, is one of the means of defending my family....To take it away, would be endangering my family. The attempt to take it away would be met with massive amounts of resistance.

My wife and I, are not like elderly folks in New Orleans.....

[Fovea]

7. All I have to say is...

That's a nice stock!

I myself prefer the Colt Model 3 Dragoon sitting here.

Sure, it's a cap and ball, but I have loaded it with 65gr of ff.
It not only is impressive in stopping power, if they are too close, the fireball will set them aflame.

Sure, it weighs almost five pounds, but I would hate to deal with that recoil in a one pound frame. I mean it wasn't supposed to be carried in a hip holster, but one on your saddle bow. It has an optional rifle stock.

And it is crazy accurate, if you load consistently.

[virginia mountainman]

11. Thanks,

It is a Boyd's stock, I have the proper RPK clubfoot stocks, put up...Along with the proper 100 rnd drum..


I have been searching high and low, for one of these Finnish Mosin Nagant rifles, some of the wood on these rifles have an unbelievable patterns in the wood.

Here is a photo of one.




One more..



What a beautiful stock, on a MILITARY RIFLE...

[shireen]

13. wow!

that's amazing -- lots of character!

[Paladin]

18. I'll Make You A Deal

I'll let you keep your clunky-assed military weapons and the ugly, testosterone-fueled attitude that goes with them---if you'll just stay the fuck out of my neighborhood.....

[virginia mountainman]

19. What attitude?!?!

Please be more specific please

[Selatius]

15. Hate to break it to you, but that's the kind of idea that cost Democrats Congress in 1994. nt

[virginia mountainman]

4. Yep, I agree...

[Prefer]

8. The court is a complete sham

Are they no better than timing everything for political effectiveness?

[Fovea]

10. Bush's trifecta is really

The executive, SCOTUS, and even now, with the help of Reid and Pelosi, Congress.

[MedleyMisty]

9. Great post - k & r

I have been having somewhat similar thoughts today related to another Supreme Court decision - are there people who really make decisions on issues by thinking about how it will affect their social standing on DU? I mean, I was anti-death penalty long before I came to DU and will be until I die, and when I came to that decision I have to say that appearing elitist and self-righteous and pure on a message board was not one of my reasons. I really don't think of the lives of other people as nothing more than abstract concepts with which to win social points.

Actually - lately it seems that taking any sort of compassionate and ethical stand on an issue is "elitist" around here. Hmm. I think that's related to your point. I mean, come on, we all know who you actually need to pander to and humor to get elected - corporations. And honestly I don't see anyone who is willing to fawn all over them to get elected having the guts to go totally radical and independent when they do get elected.

I really think that they do see the lives of other people as abstract concepts with which to win social points. Maybe it mirrors those posts on DU - maybe the people without healh care and the soldiers and all of us are just gorillas in the mist to them.

Like the whole Russert thing - Russert was real to them. The people in the Midwest going through the flooding are not.

The poll results that they'll get from making some statement about health care or the war or whatever is real to them. The people who are actually affected by their policies are not.

I got Reinhold Niebuhr's book Moral Man & Immoral Society after seeing it mentioned in a post by a DUer I respect. It's really helping me understand. Maybe you should check it out - the basic point is that although there may be individual politicans who are willing to take pro-human stands (and are often ridiculed for it here), as a class they only respond to power. And we have no power over them.

[ToeBot]

12. Liberals on the Supreme Court, that is clever.

[provis99]

14. didn't take too long for the gun masturbators to show up on this thread

[alarimer]

16. The Supreme Court was utterly WRONG on the gun thing

But they were right on the death penalty for child rape case. But wrong on so many other things as well. So it goes both ways. I actually do not give a rat's ass about guns. It seems the sooner we get rid of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts (none of whom are fit to shine Earl Warren's shoes and none of whom should ever have been approved). I seriously hope one of them retires or dies during Obama's term so we get the Court back to a more liberal stance. Moderates/liberals are the ones we need determining the laws, not these right-wing corporatist assholes like Scalia.

[Benhurst]

17. On the other hand, Pelosi has certainly achieved a lot by keeping her powder dry.

[yardwork]

20. You don't seem to understand what being a Supreme Justice means.

Justices aren't supposed to decide cases on the basis of political expediancy. It's understandable that a lot of people would be confused about this, since some of the Supreme Justices never make decisions on the basis of anything else.

As the U.S. Constitution lays out, though, the courts are supposed to be a third and independent branch of government. The judiciary is supposed to interpret the laws, not help the other two branches of government win their political battles.

The Supreme Court is supposed to determine laws based on legal precedent and their scholarly interpretation of the constitution and other laws. Theoretically, each Supreme Court justice arrives at their opinion on the basis of the law only, without consideration for the political impact.

It looks like the so-called "liberal" members of the court made a thoughtful decision. They were swamped by the political activism of the usual idiots who make a travesty of the bench.

[Lyric]

21. Oh, I don't know...maybe because they decided to vote for what they believe is Right?

We spend a lot of time harassing our leaders for always doing the "expedient" thing instead of the "right" thing. Granted, people disagree on whether or not this IS the "right" thing, but SCOTUS justices are expected to form their own Constitutional opinions on the matter. And they did exactly what they are supposed to do.

I'm tired of people trying to pre-blame a 2008 GE loss on the SCOTUS, on Clinton, on California for permitting GLBT marriage to become an "issue" in this election year, and so forth. It's not their fault if we lose...it's ours. We obviously aren't doing a good job convincing the Other Half of America that our way of thinking is the Right way. Our leaders can't do it for us. That's the responsibility of a free society, and we're the ones who aren't pulling our democratic weight.

[MedleyMisty]

23. Did you and the person above you read the whole post?

Because the subject line is a sarcastic reference to all the spin about Congressional Democrats not doing anything because they're "keeping their powder dry" and the post goes on to make just that point and praises the four justices for going with their actual opinions and not with what was politically expedient.

And as for the last paragraph in your post - I think that really the majority of Americans do agree with us. It's just that with the media being the propaganda arm of the state and with so much cheating in elections, there is no way for people to express their political will. And a lot of people realized that they had no power and no way to affect things decades ago - hence why so many Americans don't vote. They don't see how it's going to affect their lives, because they're still going to get screwed by corporations either way. Yes, it's annoying and I wish that the ones that aren't brain washed would at least vote for the lesser evil over the greater evil, but oh well.

[Pale Blue Dot]

22. "It's the economy, stupid."

By November the only, and I do mean only, issue that will matter will be the economy.

Really, it boggles the mind the amount of time we spend arguing about relatively worthless crap while the economy crumbles around us.