An Important Harbinger of Things to Come

It looks like the GOP held together on a filibuster for a strongly anti-gun judge Obama wanted to appoint to the DC Circuit. This greatly pleases me, because it means we can likely defeat a Supreme Court nominee as well. The great difficulty is that you’ll likely never get a pro-Second Amendment candidate out of Obama, but he will be at least forced to find someone who’s never said anything about it, in which case we at least both roll the dice, rather than just letting Obama pack the Court with people we know will be against us.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Wedge Issue
  2. Quote of the Day
  3. Obama Not to Push Gun Control

10 thoughts on “An Important Harbinger of Things to Come”

  1. What surprised me the most was that you had the Scott Browns, Olympia Snowes, and Susan Collins of the Senate on our side. I still can’t understand Murkowski.

  2. I still can’t understand Murkowski.

    Well, she’s not exactly a Republican anymore, a bit like Lieberman in her path but not positions. She’d better be described as (Ruling Class-AK) than (R-AK).

    I’m not at all sanguine that we’d see the same result with a Supreme Court nominee; looking at the “Gang of 14“, Snow, Collins, McCain and Lindsey Graham are still serving. Hatch’s vote of Present … is curious, but it has the same effect of a Nay vote. Brown? Don’t know, probably depends on how he views his reelection campaign for 2012 and his strategy for it.

  3. I wish I could be as optimistic as Sebastian. The current vote cost very little political capital for an anti-gunner congressman who wanted to avoid an NRA backed reelection fight. Most people outside the beltway didn’t even know this nomination was defeated.

    A public Supreme Court nominee fight is, however, a different matter. It is important that only pro-2A judges are nominated. We must not allow an anti-2A president to be elected.

  4. Well, the last two nomination fights went so very well that we got the solicitor general for Obama’s administration now judging the constitutionality of his barely-passed Healthcare law, and another who openly lied to the Senate about her beliefs on the 2nd Amendment and the meaning of the Heller case. What will it take to get the Republicans to vote against similar nominees?

    1. @Mikee – the nomination of a white male of any religion except for Islam. Then it would become more politically palatable to vote against the nominee.

    2. Exactly right! Sebation is being way too optimistic over the ability of Republicans in the U.S. Senate to stop Obama from packing the U.S. Supreme Court with anti-gun justices.

      The fact is Obama doesn’t have to select an overtly anti-gun nominee to get an anti-gun nominee. Sotomayor is proof of that. All Obama has to do is select any “mainstream” liberal judge, and he can be fairly certain how such a person would rule on a 2nd Amendment related case.

  5. All Obama has to do is the wink-wink, nod-nod thing with nominees in person. It won’t encourage ladder-climbers to keep making anti-RKBA rulings, but it will ensure that even stealth anti noms will get confirmed, if they are sufficiently good bald-faced liars at question time like Sotomayor.

  6. Hmmm, read this update and it looks like this vote very possibly had a lot more to do with payback over the history of this seat than the merits or not of the candidate.

  7. Pingback: Standing Athwart Leftist History | Daily Pundit

Comments are closed.