Democrat Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Washington DC Handgun Ban
Today the supreme court ruled that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, and that the second amendment didn’t just apply to militias. A big victory for the second amendment, gun owners, America, and the constitution. So how did Democrats react to the supreme court upholding the constitution and the citizens right to keep ans bear arms? I am glad you asked.
From Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.
What else would you expect? Typical liberal gibberish. Did Dianne Feinstein have a problem with the supreme court breaking precedence last week when the courts bestowed upon enemy combatants the right to a trial as if they were American citizens? I think not! Stop being two faced.
More Democrat reaction, this one from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J):
Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.
Upholding the constitution is radical? I suppose it is if you are on the left and you can’t implement your policies the proper way, through legislative process, and you are relying on the courts to force your positions on the American people.
Only Democrats could see the supreme court uphold the constitution and think it is a bad thing.
America's Watchtower 
“Did Dianne Feinstein have a problem with the supreme court breaking precedence last week”
Umm.. nobody broke precedence last week. Enemy combatants has never been used in such a way before, so there really is no precedent. There is, however, a precedent that non-citizens on American soil have the same rights of habeas corpus, fair trial, etc as citizens. There are also at least a couple of US Citizens (José Padilla, for example) that are classified as combatants.
As a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, I agree that Feinstein is a stupid douche and should be voted out of her position by her constituents. But it also saddens me to see such ignorance on the part of my fellow patriots. Frankly, you’re just as bad as her. If America is to be a beacon of hope, we can’t pick and choose which freedoms we’re going to continue, even if it is a time of war. America was great because of it’s freedom and we need to champion ALL of our freedoms if we are going to remain great.
LikeLike
1950 Johnson vs Eistentranger
LikeLike
Wow, John hit the nail on the head. I was just coming here to mention that there is no precedence with respect to the enemy combatants, but he beat me to it.
I think you should step down off the high horse a bit Mr. Pink. Both Democrats and Republicans have seen the court “uphold the Constitution” as a bad thing. It depends on the issue. It’s all about how you read the Constitution. If everyone agreed easily how to interpret it, we wouldn’t need the Supreme Court. Liberals aren’t always the bad guys. There’s no politician or party that gets everything 100% right. It’s foolish to believe that there is.
LikeLike
I just googled Johnson vs. Eistentrager and all I got was this blog. I went to the Supreme Ct. site and put it in and got nothing.
Are you spelling it correctly? I’d like to read the case if there really is one.
LikeLike
It looks like it is spelled right. I just finished reading a book called Men In Black by Mark Levin, that is where I read about this case. If I hadn’t just read about it I wouldn’t have included my comment about precedence in this matter.
From page 123 of the book:
Eistentrager etablished the principle that aliens detained outside the United States could not ask federal courts to review their status.
[Proceedings by alien detainees] would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. They would diminish the prestige of our commanders, not only with the enemies but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.
There is a whole chapter dedicated to this issue in the book. The chapter is called al Qaeda Gets a Lawyer.
LikeLike
Project Openletter,
Instead of throwing out accusations, learn how to use Google. I found the case in a few seconds on Google. Search under the most unique term which would be Eisentrager’s last name. Using Johnson vs. Eistentrager automatically limits your search results. Using just the last name auto corrects for proper spelling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager
Then follow the links inside the entry.
“Are you spelling it correctly? I’d like to read the case if there really is one.”
That accusation is just rude. Mr. Pink is in the correct. What he read matches the case results. The minor error was an extra t in the name. Get over it. This liberal set of 5 justices ignored precedent .
John is wrong. You are wrong again. Do your research before spewing an opinion and insinuating the author lied.
LikeLike