WHAT IS THE TAKEAWAY FROM JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’S CONFIRMATION HEARING?

AN ARBALEST QUARREL PERSPECTIVE

Liberal and Radical Left media sources made much of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s failure, as they perceived it, to respond candidly and honestly to questions thrown at her by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats during her confirmation hearing.The Progressive news source, The American Independent, for one, said this:“Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: ‘A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.’” Notwithstanding the words of the late liberal-wing leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the seditious Press concluded that, while they would gladly dismiss the late Associate Justice’s own reticence, they were loath to absolve Judge Barrett for doing the same, attempting, lamely, to draw a distinction between Justice Ginsburg's justifiable hesitation to discuss the specifics of a particular case, and Judge Barrett's demonstrating a similar restraint.MSN news, had this to say about Judge Barrett’s responses Senate Democrat Committee members’ questions designed to commit Judge Barrett to taking a particular stand on Constitutional issues.“During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Judge Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ attempts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage, and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice. ‘I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,’ she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. ‘I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.’. . . Judge Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Mr. Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule.” Huh? Judge Barrett's attempts to deflect questions were more conspicuous than the late Associate Justice Ginsburg's deflecting of questions?The mainstream seditious Press dares to suggest that Judge Amy Barrett’s justifiable wariness to being pinned down—and therefore, thereafter, constrained—were she to give categorical responses to matters of Constitutional dimension amounts to a disturbing lack of candor on her part, if not outright insolence. This is a conscious, unconscionable attempt to malign Judge Barrett.But Judge Barrett needn't assert and, in fact, shouldn’t assert how she would decide legal issues before the fact. Indeed, how could she? Activist jurists, of course, do so all the time as the public knows full well. Reflect, for a moment, if you will, on any one of a plethora of decisions handed down by activist Judges on Second Amendment and immigration matters. Activist judges almost invariably prejudge cases that come before them. They work backward from their decision to the central issue, constructing premises along the way, designed to cohere with the decision they have already made.But a methodical, meticulous, jurist, such as Judge Barrett, is perspicacious, not judgmental.Judge Barrett carefully analyzes a case; draws her inferences therefrom; and comes to a purposeful, informed, well-considered decision, never a spontaneous one. As Judge Barrett has demonstrated through her dissenting opinion in the Second Amendment Kanter case, she applies sound logical reasoning before rendering a decision. See Arbalest Quarrel article. And Judge Barrett complies with, is devoted to, and pays assiduous, diligent, and laborious attention to firmly established jurisprudential doctrinal methodology, a methodology grounded in strict adherence to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution as written, consistent with and faithful to the intention of the framers of it. In this way—and only in this way—can a jurist know that he or she is protecting the fundamental, natural, rights and liberties and sovereignty of the citizenry, and preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Of course, ruthless elements both here and abroad want none of that. They have made clear an intention to tear down our Republic, erase our history and traditions, destroy our sacred rights and liberties, and undercut our Judeo-Christian ethic and faith in a loving Divine Creator. And they have been assiduously, seditiously at work and, now, openly rewriting the U.S. Constitution to cohere with a weakened Nation, a subjugated, subservient citizenry, and a bloated Government subordinated to the will and dictates of the EU and Xi Jinping's China.These ruthless elements, through their puppets—Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee—do not want a jurist on the High Court who happens to appreciate, and who esteems, and who cherishes the U.S. Constitution as written. They want a jurist who does the bidding of Democrats in Congress, thereby turning the Court into an adjunct of the Legislature and of the ignorant mobocracy among the polity who obediently obey the commands of their taskmasters as conveyed to them through incessant, noxious propaganda.The Democrat Party lackeys of China and of secretive Billionaire Globalists are, understandably, upset with Judge Barrett, sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court; as she is a person “who will not get with the game plan,” who will not pay homage to them and who will not defer to their wishes. That is something they cannot and will not abide.Judge Barrett has made abundantly clear to all who would pay note, that she is a person of integrity, both in her personal conduct and in her role as a jurist. She has made clear that, as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she will never interpose her personal predilections in the judicial decision making process. She hasn't done so as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and she would not do so as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. How can the American public be certain of this?It is through the methodology employed in deciding cases that the full measure of a jurist can be accurately, adequately deduced. And, on that score, Judge Barrett has been honest, forthright, and open, and, on the methodology she employs in deciding cases, she has been completely candid. That should give Americans—who, as with Judge Barrett, cherish a free Constitutional Republic, who cherish the U.S. Constitution as written, and who cherish our natural, fundamental rights and liberties, as bestowed on and in man, etched into man's very being by a loving Creator—the necessary, requisite assurances that Judge Barrett qua Associate Justice Barrett will never betray the Constitution and will always remain true to our sacred, natural, fundamental rights and liberties.  This of course drives the Destructors of our Nation into a psychotic rage as they have other plans for our Nation, for our Constitution, and for our people; and they have not been shy about what those plans portend. If these Destructors can deceive enough Americans to vote for the so-called “moderate” Joe Biden and if they are able to take control of the United States Senate, then all is lost. The American electorate must see to it that this doesn’t happen.___________________________________________________________

JUDGE BARRETT'S METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING CASES EXPLAINED

Unlike activist lower Court Judges and liberal-wing High Court Justices who routinely affirm legislative enactments they find palatable, couching their personal predilections in convoluted legalese, rubber-stamping unconstitutional government action, Judge Barrett—soon to be Justice Barrett if all goes well—stated clearly, unequivocally, and categorically that she does not and would not render judgment on the basis of personal bias for or against a particular statute. And, from the cases she has heard and opined upon as a Judge, sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and from her academic writings, Americans can rest secure in the knowledge that Judge Barrett, will remain true to the written word of the U.S. Constitution and to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.Judge Barrett grounds her decisions on legal and judicial considerations alone, not on legislative policy considerations that fall within the purview of legislative bodies, outside the purview of courts.She asks: “Is this legislative enactment consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, as written?” She frames her analysis accordingly, and her decision follows logically from that analysis. Judge Barrett does not ask, nor should she ask: “Does this legislative enactment cohere with prevailing public whim and fancy, fashion and sentiment, shaped and molded by Progressive ideologues with whom I must adhere?”Through Senate Democrat questioning of Judge Barrett, it becomes abundantly clear that Democrats perceive the U.S. Supreme Court not as an independent Third Branch of Government, but merely as an adjunct of the legislature—a body that has no other purpose than to rubber-stamp Congressional enactments—statutory enactments that cohere with international law and norms, superior to the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of and antithetical to our citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties. That is what these Democrats want. That is what they desire from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But that isn’t what they will get once Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to sit on the High Court as Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And that enrages Democrats. And, so, they threaten “to pack the Court” if they are able to gain control of the Executive Branch of Government, along with control of the U.S. Senate.During the Senate confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, Republican South Carolina, asked Judge Barrett matter-of-factly how she perceives the role of a jurist.Senator Graham's question was a proper and fitting one to ask of a nominee who might sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge Barrett welcomed the opportunity to answer the Senator's question, and she was remarkably candid in her response.Senator Graham likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, first, to impress on members of the public—many of whom probably have little comprehension of the specific and appropriate role of a jurist—what the proper role of a jurist is under our Constitutional and jurisprudential framework. And he likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, second, to impress on Senate Democrats who most certainly do comprehend the proper role of a jurist but who desire to impose an improper role on our jurists, that their insinuation that Judge Barrett must do the bidding of Congress—that she owes her soul to the company store, so to speak—is wrong and wrong-headed, for such a role that Senate Democrats demand of our jurists is: one, antithetical to our Nation's Constitutional framework; two, antithetical to our Nation's jurisprudential traditions; and three, antithetical to the separation of powers doctrine. The desire of Senate Democrats to impose their will on judicial nominees was clearly apparent through their long-winded, generally imbecilic monologues and through their impertinent, often insulting queries directed to Judge Barrett. Senate Democrats' insinuation that the U.S. Supreme Court belongs to Congress, and must do the bidding of Congress, is blasphemous. It is dangerous to the well-being of our Nation. It is arrogant in the extreme, and wholly untenable.In response to Senator Graham, Judge Barrett, explained clearly and succinctly: “I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” See, Washington Examiner article, as posted by MSN news.Judge Barrett explained that the framers of our Constitution never meant for the U.S. Supreme Court to operate like Congress, and, more to the point, never intended for the U.S. Supreme Court to take its cue from Congress, advocating for and on behalf of Congress.Congress enacts laws predicated on policy choices. Those policy choices may or may not be consistent with the Constitution. If those policy choices, as reflected in law, are at loggerheads with the textual meaning of the Constitution as the embodiment of the intent of the framers of it, then the Court must step in to overturn the law. That is the solemn duty of an American jurist.That isn’t what activist Judges and Justices do and, so, that isn’t what Senate Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to hear. They want docile, obedient jurists, answerable to Congress. Their frustration with, resentment of, even anger with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was painfully evident.They remonstrated over Judge Barrett's refusal to take a definitive stand on pending legal issues and on legal issues apt to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future. They insisted that she acquiesce to their absurd policy objectives; demanding that she declare categorical, unequivocal, acceptance of and adherence to their pernicious, horrific Collectivist vision for the Country, one that reduces Americans to subservient cattle. This Collectivist vision is characterized by uniformity in thought and conduct among the masses; dependency on Government largess for one's physical needs; and the deliberate inculcation of confusion and fear in the masses, effectuated through a targeted campaign of systematic predation on the polity that is unable to effectively defend itself because firearms will have been universally banned.It was all on constant, ignominious display throughout the hearing. And through it all Judge Barrett remained noticeably and notably calm but alert; courteous; unruffled; even, at times, convivial. And that must have enraged Senate Democrats even more; their vote against confirming Judge Barrett to a seat on the High Court a foregone conclusion, a vote that Senate Republicans, fortunately, do not or ought not need._______________________________________________

ON THE DOCTRINES OF PRECEDENT AND SUPER-PRECEDENT IN U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW

A legitimate, perceptive question for Judge Barrett—one that has been asked of previous nominees but, was not asked of her, during the hearing, or otherwise was not dealt with in any extensive appreciable way—involves the judicial doctrine of case law Precedent, referred to as Stare Decisis. The Cornell Law School website defines ‘Stare Decisis,’ thus:“Stare decisis is Latin for ‘to stand by things decided.’ In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary though weren't interested in eliciting profound, insightful responses  from Judge Barrett on that score, which they certainly could have obtained had they bothered to ask her to expound upon the the doctrine of stare decisis. Judge Barrett would certainly have been inclined to elaborate on that matter. But, Democrats weren't interested in that or on any other jurisprudential or juridical subject of any real significance. They were only interested in, or mostly interested in, scoring political points to help them get the feeble, frail Joe Biden over the finish line in November, and in maintaining a majority of Democrats in the House, and taking control of the Senate. If successful, that would give them all the power they would ever need "to pack the High Court" with their lackeys, thereby neutralizing Judge Barrett's seat on the Court.So caught up were Senate Democrats in the frenzy of the moment that, what otherwise could have been a profitable, informative confirmation hearing, devolved, by turns, into, one, a harangue against Trump; two, an annoying, uncalled for, insulting accusation that Judge Barrett must be a pawn of the President; three, a demand that Judge Barrett recuse herself on this, that, or the other case that might happen to come before her once she is seated on the High Court; four, incessant odious, presumptuous, recitations of  Democrat Party policy positions that Judge Barrett was compelled to suffer through; five, insulting innuendoes concerning Judge Barrett's private life and personal religious convictions; and, six, an extended, extensive Democrat Party campaign advert in support of the Harris/Biden ticket.During the hearing, Senate Democrats made manifestly and adamantly clear their fervent desire and their firm intention to raise both abortion on demand and the ACA to the level of fundamental rights, and, as if that weren't enough, they audaciously sought Judge Barrett's imprimatur on abortion and the ACA. They never obtained it. Senate Democrats also made abundantly clear their vehement abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and of their deep-seated, enduring wish to reduce a clear illimitable, immutable, unalienable, fundamental, natural right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—to the status of a mere Governmental privilege, to be bestowed upon and rescinded at the whim of Government bureaucrats.Had someone but troubled to ask Judge Barrett to expound on a paper she had written on the very subject of stare decisis, she would have acknowledged that resolution of Constitutional issues is not always clear-cut, thereby ameliorating, perhaps, some of the harsh criticism leveled against her by Senate Democrats. Then, too, if Senate Democrats devoted more time eliciting critical juridical doctrinal ideas from the nominee and less time delivering heated polemics and exhibiting fits and bursts of histrionics, the confirmation hearing could have been, and likely would have been, much more productive. Alas, they didn't; and, it wasn’t.In her article, written for a symposium on Constitutional disagreement, Judge Barrett laid out her thesis on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, thus:“Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error, and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution. Because the justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying ‘error’ in constitutional cases. Rejection of a controversial precedent does not always mean that the case is wrong when judged by its own lights; it sometimes means that the justices voting to reverse rejected the interpretive premise of the case. In such cases, ‘error’ is a stand-in for jurisprudential disagreement.”A lesser known, quasi-judicial, principle, that of ‘super-precedent,’—was raised by Senate Democrat Amy Klobuchar, but, unfortunately, wasn't pursued. Senator Klobuchar simply brought up the principle to emphasize and to capitalize on a Democrat Party talking point. She wanted to know whether Judge Barrett thought that Roe vs. Wade was so fixed in Supreme Court precedent that it could not or should not be overruled, which is to say that it should be perceived, then, as a super-precedent.Judge Barrett rightfully demurred. The pointed question pertaining to Roe vs. Wade was altogether inappropriate, and Judge Barrett respectfully, but firmly, declined to take the bait.In any event, Roe vs. Wade may be cast in stone as some people see it, but that is no reason to believe its precedential value is beyond reasonable legal dispute.The fact remains that Roe vs. Wade was a bizarre attempt at a judicial “squaring of the circle.” Yet, it was no more than a crude attempt to create a fundamental right out of whole cloth. Still, notwithstanding that some people strenuously and indefatigably, albeit bizarrely, extol that ruling as a thing sacrosanct and inviolate, is not to mean that the ruling carries with it or should carry with it some paramount attribute or weight and must, therefore, never be overruled—only enhanced, if anything, to the point where the murder of a child is lawfully permitted up to the moment of live birth.In fact, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s law on abortion does allow for abortion up to the very moment of birth, contrary to Cuomo’s claims that the new, strengthened, New York law is consistent with Roe vs. Wade. It isn’t. Cuomo is either a liar or ignorant of the import of his own law because the word ‘abortion’ has been excised from the New York Criminal Code. The AQ has explained Cuomo’s duplicity on this issue.On the other hand, in contradistinction to Roe vs. Wade, one might ask if Heller vs. District of Columbia is super-precedent case law. Senate Democrats and other political and social progressives would argue it isn’t, predicated, no doubt, on their abject abhorrence of and repugnance toward firearms and firearms' possession, which raises an aesthetic and/or psychological argument against the Second Amendment, not a pertinent legal one.The critical legal question in Heller was whether the Second Amendment embraces an individual right.The High Court Majority held that the Second Amendment—the Majority Opinion written by the late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia—does embrace an individual right; and that it does so on logical, as well as legal, grounds; for were it not so, then the right codified in it would be reduced to a nullity and there would have been no point to it.Heller, unlike Roe vs. Wade, must, then, be construed as a manifestly super-precedent ruling: a ruling that resists overturning lest irreparable damage be done to the Bill of Rights itself and, no less, to the sovereignty of the American people whose sovereignty is only assured through force of arms; the principal bulwark against the inexorable slide toward and inevitable onset of tyranny.But, assuming arguendo that Heller were to be overruled—something well within the realm of possibility if the Democrats make good their threat “to pack the Court” if they gain control of the Executive and of the Senate, and a Second Amendment case then wended its way to the Court. But, for Heller to be overturned, a High Court majority would be compelled to opine that the original holding was wrong, which is tantamount to saying the Second Amendment has no meaning at all. But Democrats wouldn’t have a problem drawing that conclusion anyway. Yet, it is patently absurd to say the Second Amendment has no import. From a logical point of view, apart from the legal certainty, the Second Amendment does embrace and must embrace an individual right. So the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment codifies an individual right is dead-on correct. This brings us to Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat, Illinois, and to his singularly odd remarks during the hearing. For all that he had to say about firearms, it would have been interesting if he had had the wherewithal to broach the import of, and the historical imperative of the Second Amendment, with Judge Barrett—instead of going on about black powder muzzle-loaders as if he had any idea what he was talking about, anyway. But he didn’t. And that is just as well, for Senator Durbin obviously has no comprehensive knowledge of nor appreciation for the technical characteristics of firearms; nor does he care one whit about the sacred, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to keep and bear them._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.