Firearms Friday: For Whom Are You Really Voting?

This is how we started the year... how will it look in four years? 

Well, the campaigns are now in full swing and it seems like every other commercial is sponsored by the Clinton campaign (or some associated group). There are also the various campaign spots from local politicians filling the screen as well but that is another topic for another day. Back to the national campaigns… so far I haven’t seen much regarding the qualifications of Hillary Clinton being ‘promoted’ in these advertisements rather they have been going out of their way to attack Donald Trump and some of his statements which have been clearly taken out of context.

Heck, even my wife has been disturbed by this trend. But this shouldn’t really be a surprised for those of us who have put some thought into the presidential race as there are no ‘qualifications’ or ‘accomplishments’ to be found in her record that would, in any way, support her candidacy. After all, an ad buy promoting Obamacare, Benghazi, and private servers wouldn’t really be part of a winning strategy. It is actually rather pathetic the lack of concise information present to support her rather than simply opposing Trump.

However, I digress. What I really want to bring to the fore is what is of utmost importance in this election cycle. It isn’t Obamacare or the economy. It isn’t race relations or military operations. It isn’t international relations or the national debt. While these are all important in their own right they are not of primary concern this time around. In fact, it really isn’t about who is occupying the White House. It’s about the Supreme Court not the Presidency!

In addition to the seat left vacant upon Antonin Scalia’s death this past February, there are likely to be three other appointments which need to be made by the next president. After all, there are currently three associate justices who are 78, 80, and 83 years old respectively. For those of you interested, below is a list of the current court with ages and by which president they were appointed:

John Roberts (Chief Justice), 61, George W. Bush

Anthony Kennedy, 80, Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas, 68, George H. W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginzburg, 83, Bill Clinton

Stephen Breyer, 78, Bill Clinton

Samuel Alito Jr, 66, George W. Bush

Sonia Sotomayor, 62, Barak Obama

Elena Kagan, 56, Barak Obama

The Supreme Court is the body that will determine the direction of this nation not the individual in the oval office. Whomever wins this election and takes office in January will determine the course of this country for the next generation not the next four or eight years. Personally, and I know I am not alone in this thinking, I would prefer a conservative court that upholds our rights (especially the second amendment), limits the power held by those in Washington, and, most importantly, support and defends the Constitution. It is scary to think about the possibility of a court where five of the justices where appointed by a Clinton and two more where appointed by Obama. That is a future that none of us can afford.  

Firearms Friday: Justice Scalia

A couple of weeks ago we lost a tremendous intellect on the Supreme Court when Antonin Scalia passed away. While there have been many who have criticized his views over the years, including in the firearms community, there is no questioning the passion that he had for the Constitution and for the true intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. In fact, there were times when he himself didn’t completely agree with his own decision but reached the conclusion that he did because it was the right decision. As he has been quoted as saying, “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

Surprisingly, one of the more balanced ‘obituaries’ written shortly after his death can be attributed to Mark Sherman at the Associated Press who rightly focused on Scalia’s commitment to textualism. In part, he writes:

Scalia showed a deep commitment to originalism, which he later began calling textualism. Judges had a duty to give the same meaning to the Constitution and laws as they had when they were written. Otherwise, he said disparagingly, judges could decide that "the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean."

A challenge to a Washington, D.C., gun ban gave Scalia the opportunity to display his devotion to textualism. In a 5-4 decision that split the court's conservatives and liberals, Scalia wrote that an examination of English and colonial history made it exceedingly clear that the Second Amendment protected Americans' right to have guns, at the very least in their homes and for self-defense. The dissenters, also claiming fidelity to history, said the amendment was meant to ensure that states could raise militias to confront a too-powerful federal government if necessary.

But Scalia rejected that view. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote.

Unfortunately, his passing leaves a gaping hole in the highest court in the land. Not because he sided primarily with one party or another but because he was an originalist. There is too much ‘selective interpretation’ in politics and in the courts today and having someone relying solely on the text is a tremendous grounding asset that has been taken for granted for too long. Additionally, the passion that he freely expressed for our founding document is something that was evident in the eloquence of his majority opinions but especially in his dissenting opinions.

It is a shame that the two things that have been talked about most since his passing is the lack of respect by the President in not attending his funeral (but he took the time to meet with the ‘death to the police’ Black Lives Matter organizers) and the ongoing debate surrounding the nomination of a replacement. Here is a revolutionary idea, why don’t we honor his memory by nominating someone who views our Constitution in the same unbiased way making decisions based on the text rather than the social flavor of the month. No politics, just focusing on the text. I’m not even asking for nine, I just want to see one Justice on the Supreme Court who takes their oath literally.

What Was That First Line Again?

So is this okay now?

It has been an interesting week to say the least. Actually, it has been an interesting couple of weeks. I glossed over this topic a little in my post yesterday but let's take the time now to dive a little deeper. 

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued a ruling to legalized same sex marriage throughout the United States.  While I don’t have a particularly strong feeling one way or the other, I was intrigued by the first sentence of the ruling which reads, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” It was interesting because it summed up another debate that has been happening across the United States.

This same line could be applied to those who see the stars and bars as a means of self-expression. While the recent history, and interpretation of history prior to the modern era, of that flag have tainted the original perspective, there are some that still hold onto that symbol not for the suppression that it has come to represent but because of the ideal of state’s rights that it stood for. In that vein, there is no denying that slavery played a role in dividing the nation but rights are what lead the country to war.

We have to remember that at that time most were indifferent to the institution of slavery both in the north and the south. However, when the federal government stripped away the rights of the states, that is what the people in the south rallied around. Hence the terms still used to this day “The War of Northern Aggression” and “The Battle for Southern Independence”. State’s rights is why the stars and bars have remained in South Carolina as the state flag flying above the capital.

But, like many things these days, the flag offends people so it must be hidden away and never spoken of again. Many of those same people proudly displayed a bright flag of their own today to support the rights of people. Again, while I don’t care one way or another, I am sure there are many people that are offended by that display of pride. Where is the outcry to remove those flags? Shouldn’t the same rules apply to all people and to all flags?

What it all comes down to is that you can’t have it both ways. You either support the rights of individuals to express themselves and live the lives they want to lead or you want to strip away the rights from people. Frankly, I would like to be left alone. Let me live my life, express myself openly, and enjoy my rights. The government shouldn’t be telling people or states what to do, who to marry, what we can own, what we can display, what we can and can’t say, and overall how we should live our lives. Enjoy your rights and remember this… just say no to big government!

Do You Really Want Me As A Juror?

 
Today is the date that I was told to report and like any other day during the work week I woke up early, grabbed my stuff and got in the car. Last month I went to pick up the mail and as I flipped through the envelopes one stood out to me. Crap! I got called for jury duty. While many might try to feed you the lines of ‘serving the community’ or ‘supporting the legal system’ I firmly believe that it is a complete waste of time and I shouldn’t be required to burn one of my vacation days to simply fill a seat. Plus I have to drive to Norristown and supposedly park in a temporary lot while the juror parking garage is under construction. This is sounding like it is going to be so much fun!

 

Hopefully some of my displeasure came across in my answers to the questionnaire that I filled out last week (they should pay me for the time it took to fill out that list of crap). And that was even after I waited and had accepted my fate before filling it out. The interesting thing about most of the questions that they ask is that if you think about them long enough you can honestly answer them yes or no. Here are just a couple of the yes or no questions that can be found on the form:

 

Do you have any religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that might prevent you from serving as a juror?

 

When you first read it you think that as a moral, ethical, and grounded person you should check yes but if you put some thought into your response, as I did, I had no choice but to honestly answer no. As a proud Jew (Israeli actually), if someone were to go on trial who is proven to have any kind of tenuous affiliation with a terrorist organization (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) or white supremacist group, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the crime, I would immediately assume them to be guilty. Right or wrong that is honestly how I would react. Plus I have a huge gripe with the extreme liberals and hippies in this country so the same type of scenario could play out that way too. Don’t be offended regular non hippie liberals that is not directed at all of you.

 

In general, would you have any problem following and applying the judge’s instruction on the law?

 

Well… in general, using the Supreme Court as a means of measurement, I am certain that I would completely disagree with a judge’s instruction on the law about half the time in a number of different kinds of cases. If this were specified as a means of applying the letter of the law to a case I would say no. However, this is specifying the generality of the situation so that I have no other option than to respond with yes. While I am obviously by no means a legal scholar, I have my views and there are numerous laws that I disagree with which could, albeit not guaranteed, influence my ability to serve and follow said instruction. Therefore, in general, I might take issue with certain instructions. Also see the previous question and response because there is the potential that one of the instructions could be to ignore such affiliations that are not pertinent to the case at hand.

 

While it could have been simply a lack of cases there is a good possibility that my honesty on the questionnaire is why I was not required to report. Instead, I got to go to work and earn the money that gets taxed to hell so that we can have these overburdened and sometimes broken systems in place. But at least I didn’t have to burn a vacation day!

 

Split Decision Fallout

"Frankly, I don’t just want businesses to stay out of the bedroom, I want the government out of the bedroom too."

It has been rather interesting today watching, reading, and listening to the debate following the decision of the Supreme Court in favor of Hobby Lobby. So, what happened? Under Obamacare, companies that pay for insurance for their workers (and decide not to be fined) are required to use plans that include contraception. In the lawsuit, Hobby Lobby (along with other businesses) argued that they should be exempt from the new rule because their owners object to some forms of contraception on religious grounds.

The primary objective was to allow the company to opt out of covering morning after pills and IUD’s totaling 4 of the 20 widely used forms of birth control in this country on the grounds that they believe these measures to be a form of abortion and, therefore, against their religious beliefs. The Oklahoma City-based craft store chain operates 600 stores across the county employing over 15,000 full time employees.

In the end, the court interpreted a 1993 religious-freedom law passed by Congress. In a summary of the decision (the final vote was 5-4), Justice Samuel Alito stated that the aforementioned law gives closely held companies a right to religious freedom. Specifically, Alito concluded, “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.”

In the dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the majority was accused of finding in favor of the religious rights of a handful of corporate owners at the expense of “thousands of women” employed by Hobby Lobby and other companies who don’t share those views. To the surprise of no one, the Democrats took this opinion and did their best Forrest Gump impression. Run, Liberals, Run!

Since this decision, all social media streams have been flowing heavily and the party lines seemed to have become bolder since the final decision was reached. From the catchy slogans positioning this as anti-woman to the lies being spread that all forms of contraception are being pulled from the health plans offered by Hobby Lobby, it has been a day of sifting through the garbage and waiting for those brief glimpses of thoughtfulness (from both viewpoints). While the debate still rages as I wrap up this post, and it will certainly continue for the foreseeable future, the verdict has come and gone and individual liberty has won out.

While I am uncertain as to the means they used to reach their decision by expanding the rights of the corporation, I agree with the decision of the court. If it were an outright refusal to cover anything I would hold the opposite opinion. Preventative measures, still supported by hobby lobby, differ from those that are being refused. It is the gray world in which we live and no decision will satisfy everyone. We all make compromises in this country just keep in mind that these products are still available, they are still legal, it is simply a matter of who pays for them.

No one’s rights have been taken away it just takes a bit more effort to exercise those rights… individual rights are the responsibility of the individual. Too many people are expecting things to simply be handed to them. Frankly, I don’t just want businesses to stay out of the bedroom, I want the government out of the bedroom too. And I want the government out of my pocket as, in the end, we are the ones who are paying for these ‘expanded’ benefits whether we want them or agree with them. The government shouldn’t get in the way and/or exercise those rights on your behalf. It is your right, your freedom, your individual liberty, your faith, your responsibility. 

Sometimes The Only Cure Is Blindness

When it comes to education or employment I am like most people. I could give less than a crap about what race you are or where you come from. It all comes down to qualifications and ability. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case in this country and there are undoubtedly instances here and there when race and background are seen as differentiators. It is unfortunate but it is also reality.

Racism has always been a problem in this country. I would even call it an epidemic. It is a virulent societal infection for which there is only one cure… blindness.

The latest decision by the Supreme Court in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is at least a step, albeit small, in the right direction. Affirmative Action was something that had a place and time. It is by no means a perfect solution but it at least prompted a slight increase in diversity in the educational system and the workforce. And what is the best way to fight racism? That’s right, with more racism. After all, Affirmative Action is inherently racist.

You don’t need to think about it too much to realize that the law was designed so that race is considered in all aspects of higher education and in the workforce. Regardless of the pool of applicants, there are certain quotas that must be met. How would you feel if your child was turned down from a college because the school must maintain a certain level of diversity? How would you feel if you got a job over someone else, someone who may have been more qualified, because of the color of your skin?  

We have gone from one extreme to the other as we try to play political sociologist. While it is without question wrong to discriminate, it should be equally despicable to be racist. And yes, in this scenario, those are two different concepts as it has always been wrong to discriminate based on race and you can’t turn someone down for a job solely based on race when they are otherwise equally or more qualified than the other applicants. However, the requirement to admit students based on certain racial ratios is not discrimination, it is racism. So, as you can see, they are treated as two completely different concepts. This is Affirmative Action in action.

Now, while Affirmative Action is not completely eliminated from the books it is at least in the hands of the people. That is what was done, the Supreme Court is allowing the states to determine whether race can be a consideration in admission to state schools. Specifically, as reported in the Washington Post, “By a vote of 6 to 2, the court concluded that it was not up to judges to overturn the 2006 decision by Michigan voters to bar consideration of race when deciding who gets into the state’s universities.”

In a show of restraint by the Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.) wrote the main opinion:

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it… There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

So, in the end, it is up to us. We must demonstrate our blindness, fight for what is right, and also come to terms with the fact that life is not always fair! It is our individual efforts, responsibility, and work ethic that make up who we are. While we all have the opportunity to live life to be proud of in this country happiness is not guaranteed. It is our right to pursue happiness. Our decisions, our efforts, and our ability to see past many of our differences are essential in the achievement of that happiness. As was determined by the justices, it is our decision.