Holder Senate Hearing

[bridge]

Got this off USAToday website...

Update at 10:36 a.m. ET. Holder says Supreme Court has spoken on Second Amendment:

Donna reports that Leahy questioned Holder about the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming an individual's right to bear arms.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Holder said. "That is now the law of the land."

Wow. I hope that's the end of that...but I doubt it.

[Lumberjack98]

Holder also said that he believes that under a Heller world, there is still room for common sense gun laws. He indicated that he wants to 1) close the "gun show loophole", 2) make "cop killer" bullets illegal and 3) supports re instituting the assault weapons ban and making it permanent.

This is no where near the end of it.

[AEA]

He got confirmed by the Senate today.
A sad day for the 2nd.......

Cornyn and Sen. Tom Coburn said Holder was hostile to the right of individuals to own guns, despite a Supreme Court ruling last June affirming the right to have weapons for self-defense in the home.

Holder said at his confirmation hearings: "I understand that the Supreme Court has spoken." But he added that some restrictions on guns could still be legal.

[jimlongley]

"I understand that the Supreme Court has spoken."

His understanding and his agreeing to abide by it are two completely different, and diametrically opposite, things.

[Oldgringo]

Holder is a card carrying democrat who knows who 'butters his bread' and where - nothing more, nothing less.

[Purplehood]

He got confirmed by the Senate today.
A sad day for the 2nd.......

Cornyn and Sen. Tom Coburn said Holder was hostile to the right of individuals to own guns, despite a Supreme Court ruling last June affirming the right to have weapons for self-defense in the home.

Holder said at his confirmation hearings: "I understand that the Supreme Court has spoken." But he added that some restrictions on guns could still be legal.

I wish my job interviews had been as easy.

[phoneguy]

Got this off USAToday website...

Update at 10:36 a.m. ET. Holder says Supreme Court has spoken on Second Amendment:

Donna reports that Leahy questioned Holder about the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming an individual's right to bear arms.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Holder said. "That is now the law of the land."

Wow. I hope that's the end of that...but I doubt it.

When someone says that a particular Supreme Court decision is the "law of the land" ie Roe v Wade, i remind them that in...

1860 Dred Scott was the law of the land,

1900 Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land,

1920 the 18th ammendment was the law of the land (and that really was the law, not just the opinion of 5 of 9 elderly lawyers)

NOTHING is the permanant "law of the land", and that is the beauty of our system, to quote one of my favorite movie scenes, Joe Pesci (Simon), and Gore Vidal (Professor)

Simon Wilder: You asked the question, sir, now let me answer it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. The beauty of the Constitution is that it makes no set law other than faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.
Proffesor Pitkannan: Faith in the wisdom of the people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.
Simon Wilder: Crude? No, sir. Our "founding parents" were pompous, white, middle-aged farmers, but they were also great men. Because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. Sure, they'd make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. The president is not an "elected king," no matter how many bombs he can drop. Because the "crude" Constitution doesn't trust him. He's just a bum, okay Mr. Pitkannan? He's just a bum.

(With Honors, 1994)

God willing, we can survive "the Chosen One" and his minions, and undo their damage.

[mr.72]

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed.

God willing, we can survive "the Chosen One" and his minions, and undo their damage.

Unfortunately, the Constitution really is neither likely to change, nor necessary to change in order to change the law, according to modern policy.

The vast majority of Federal Law and policy enacted by Congress since the middle of the 20th century or earlier is outside of the bounds of the Constitution as it stands today. The Constitution, due to this perceived flexibility, is routinely twisted into some narrow, nonlinear, nearly-useless set of archaic ideals in the minds of most voters, and therefore, their constituencies. And it so happens that the demise of the power of the Constitution was a suicide. The 16th and 17th Amendments sounded the death knell for our way of government.

In fact the best thing that we could do is petition our state governments to begin a Constitutional Convention, with the intent of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, thus forcing the Federal government to again recognize states rights.

[phoneguy]

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed.

God willing, we can survive "the Chosen One" and his minions, and undo their damage.

Unfortunately, the Constitution really is neither likely to change, nor necessary to change in order to change the law, according to modern policy.

The vast majority of Federal Law and policy enacted by Congress since the middle of the 20th century or earlier is outside of the bounds of the Constitution as it stands today. The Constitution, due to this perceived flexibility, is routinely twisted into some narrow, nonlinear, nearly-useless set of archaic ideals in the minds of most voters, and therefore, their constituencies. And it so happens that the demise of the power of the Constitution was a suicide. The 16th and 17th Amendments sounded the death knell for our way of government.

In fact the best thing that we could do is petition our state governments to begin a Constitutional Convention, with the intent of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, thus forcing the Federal government to again recognize states rights.

Sadly, a very correct assesment.