Turns out it was Mitch Daniels who foisted this judicial thing on us, and who offered this as his reason why:
The governor said that from Judge David, he heard “the clearest expression of commitment to proper restraint in jurisprudence and deep respect for the boundaries of judicial decision-making. He will be a judge who interprets, rather than invents our laws.”I'd hate to see who came in second.
Daniels has been OK on some RKBA stuff, but he's one of those "enforce existing gun laws" types rather than someone who actually understands the issue.
Vox Day has more, including:
And Daniels has thus far remained silent on the issue, when anything short of an abject apology for David's appointment combined with a demand for David's immediate resignation, and the resignation of the other two judges who sided with David, is absolutely necessary for him to remain a credible governor, let alone a president.
7 comments:
And of course who could forget what he said when the 'no guns in the Statehouse' CTASC fiat rule was enforced? 'I don't see what the big deal is.'
He is simply a 'more palatable' shill meant to be a supposed alternative to neocons like Gingrich
Worse is better, Comrade.
Apparently the Indiana Supremes have now ruled on a matter that many deceased homeowners have discovered is REALLY how it works.
You have no right to defend yourself against the Police State.
Remember - they hate us because we're free...
It's also "the law" in other states as well - it's just a dirty little secret, not perniciously defined by the Supreme Court: http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w212.html
Looks like the SCOTUS is on the same page. It's an upside down world when Justice Ginsburg is the one standing up for our rights.
It' not like Governor Daniels couldn't have known what Steven David is; Carrie Severino, National Review Online, Bench Notes 02/2011:
Or maybe he [Daniels] could explain why the official Steven David bio released by his office announced the fact that David is a member of the American Judicature Society, the leading institutional proponent of the Missouri Plan, and beneficiary of more than $1 million in contributions from George Soros’s Open Society Institute since 2000. ...
When Daniels had an opportunity to roll back Indiana’s Missouri Plan, he vetoed it. When a great opportunity to criticize the process and lend a hand in the national movement to reform the Missouri Plan presented itself during Indiana’s most recent supreme court vacancy, he remained silent.
(end quote). The "Missouri Plan"
is an classic Progressive ploy to allow rule by the "elites"
The Severino quote above was reached via Old Grouch oldgrouch.mee.nu and/or Richochet.com, both of whom have cogent discussions of the recent ruling and the Indiana judge nomination process.
Isn't this Indiana Supreme Court ruling one where Alinsky Rules might be relevant? Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it. Refuse to serve the Justices, clean their clothes, etc. Anything that's peaceful, folks. Wonder if the DU and HuffPo folks have thought of this.
Post a Comment