The liberal bias of the so called fact checkers is blatant and obvious and time for people to do a little fact checking of their own.
On the second amendment. Donald Trump.
“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now.”
Chris Wallace said
“Secretary Clinton, you said last year — and let me quote, The Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment. And now in fact, in the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the judge Antonin Scalia who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?
Hillary Clinton said.
“You mentioned the Heller decision and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment. “
No Heller had nothing to do with children, nothing! Washington DC had a total ban on handguns unless you had a permit and refused to issue permits, and even if you could obtain one it would have to be kept in a non functioning state rendering it useless for self defense purposes.
“District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. ”
Townhall did an excellent piece on the subject.
On the Supreme court.
“Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, welcome. Let’s get right to it. The first topic is the Supreme Court. We — you both talk briefly about the court in the last debate, but I want to drill down on this because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely — or possibly – two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century. First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Is — do the founders words mean what they say, or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances? In this segment, Secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes. ”
“Thank you very much, Chris. And thank you UNLV for hosting us. You know, at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system. I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. ”
“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it’s absolutely important that we uphold because of the fact that it is under such trauma. I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they are people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that’s very, very important. I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear It’s all about the Constitution of — and so important — the Constitution, the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint. ”
Hillary avoided the question all together, she engaged in the appeal to emotion fallacy. But her words were telling. She said “But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. “. It is not the role of the supreme court to represent anybody, nor is it the role of the supreme court to inflict one groups morals or to pick winners or losers. It is the role of the court to ensure all “FEDERAL LAWS” conform to the constitution. PERIOD! Where Trump got it right, ““We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments.“, and that’s where he should have stopped. It is not the role of the courts to decide national morals or dictate what the states must or can’t allow unless it’s specified by the constitution per the 10th amendment. “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“
That is a fact that was even admitted to by then Senator Obama.
To advocate anything else is in and of itself a violation of the Constitution. Hillary implying that the courts got it wrong in “Citizens United” Is flat out wrong, I wrote about it on another blog. If anything a politician promising to do anything “for you or give you anything” should be considered a bribe.
This is a fact that is ignored by the modern left, who promises more and more free stuff at the expense of the economy and the national debt and of course a class of people that the modern left demonizes. Again Hillary’s words not mine.
“And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.”
No Mrs Clinton, the supreme court needs to stand on the Constitution, and stand for the rights of the individual, not a class, gender or race. Period!