ABA’s Fake Piety Overrides Due Process in ‘Hate Crime’ Gun Ban Resolution

So much for stated ABA “principles.” You can’t tell it by their actions.

The ABA’s House of Delegates approved a resolution recommending disarming American citizens based on accusations of “hate crimes” and being a threat, the American Bar Association announced Tuesday. Despite due process concerns raised by some who still view the Constitution as an impediment to total and arbitrary “progressive” rule, Resolution 118B passed by one vote.

While the resolution calls for “documented evidence,” that’s an arbitrary term and has no bearing on the quality of the evidence or of its admissibility. What is to be “verifiable” is a “procedure to ensure surrender of guns and ammunition pursuant to a restraining order” and a means to report resulting restraining orders to state and federal authorities to preclude the accused from buying guns and ammunition.

“Gun violence restraining orders are a modest common-sense reform to address at least one piece” Estelle Rogers, a “progressive” (naturally) member of the Civil Rights and Social Justice (!) faction declared, adding the other requisite gun-grabber narrative talking points that “the right to keep and bear arms isn’t absolute.”

Connecticut Bar Association President and gun infringement activist Monte Frank then made the obligatory reference to Newtown as a reason to support the measure, ignoring the inconvenient truth that his state’s restraining order edict would not have applied to the lawful owner of the reportedly stolen guns.

Joined in opposition by the Law Student Division, Vermont attorney Peter Langrock tried to steer things back to the Constitution, warning “such orders raise First Amendment concerns because they could target people based on speech, including statements on social media. Langrock also said the ex parte orders raise 14th Amendment due process concerns, and gun seizures based on such orders raise Fourth Amendment concerns.”

What’s clear is there is a dominant faction of “progressive” lawyers within the ABA leadership – officers of the court – for whom the Constitution is something to be twisted, subverted and ignored as suits their agenda. Recalling that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, is it any wonder that “innocent until proven guilty” has been reversed, and that demands are being made to deny fundamental natural rights of citizens not even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one?

Because “haters” have no rights…?

We’ve already seen from recent events that those the lying cultural Marxists smear as “Nazis and fascists” are blocked from speaking under the outrageous and tyrannical insistence that “Hate speech is not free speech.” So much for respecting the right of free speech. And now, unsurprisingly, so much for respecting the right to keep and bear arms. If that’s the case, if America is to be a land of rights for the politically favored, why not go all out?  Do “Nazis” and “fascists” really deserve search and seizure protections, or protections against self-incrimination, or jury trials, or immunity from cruel and unusual punishment?

That’s where all this is heading, you know.

OK, but what do we do about “haters”?

What, you mean real ones, or the ones accused of being haters by the Marxists, folks like gun owners, Republicans, immigration reduction advocates, pro-lifers, Christians, Oath Keepers…? Constitutionalists…?

How about if someone commits a crime you investigate and if warranted, charge them, try them by a jury of their peers, and if they’re convicted, sentence them appropriately? Who but the mob and its leaders – those bent on tearing down the Republic and replacing it with Killing Fields – does that seem unreasonable to?

Still, this is just one branch of the ABA making these noises, some may say. And none of this has force of law. Why maker big deal of it?

“Guilty until proven innocent” is now being endorsed by many prominent in the leadership of the influential (and demonstrably anti-gun) ABA. That means it will be noticed, considered and when convenient and exploitable, promulgated and advanced by radicalized law professors and students, attorneys, judges and politicians, not to mention by “social justice warriors,” their media cheerleaders, and the calculating minds behind the so-called “deep state.”

So take this as the shape of things to come unless and until those with a different vision of America can stem and reverse an emboldened collectivist tide. And be prepared to be called a “hater” and worse.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?“

Neil Gorsuch Officially Confirmed To The Supreme Court

Update: After weeks of endless rhetoric and party bickering over the controversial usage of the "nuclear option", Neil Gorsuch has officially been confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States with a largely partisan vote of 54-45.

* * *

Following a series of procedural votes yesterday to invoke the so-called "nuclear option", the Senate is expected to vote shortly to confirm Neil Gorsuch as the 113th justice to serve on the Supreme Court.  

Given the rule changes implemented yesterday, Republicans require only a simple majority vote to confirm Gorsuch, and with Republicans holding a 52-48 majority in the Senate, today"s vote is all but a foregone conclusion.  And while it will mostly be a partisan vote, 3 Democrats are also expected to support Gorsuch for a final vote tally of 55-45.

The official roll call can be watched here:

* * *

Here is our summary from yesterday on the Senate"s move to invoke the "nuclear option":

In a historic vote, Senate Republicans on Thursday crushed "a Democratic blockade" - in Reuters" words - of Trump"s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, in a fierce partisan brawl, approving a rule change dubbed the "nuclear option" to allow for conservative judge Neil Gorsuch"s confirmation by Friday.

The Senate voted 52-48 along party lines to repeal a rule allowing filibusters against Supreme Court nominees,invoking the so-called nuclear option, and clearing the way for Gorsuch confirmation who now needs a simple majority for nomination. Shortly thereafter, the Senate voted 55-45 to end debate on Gorsuch’s nomination, setting up a final vote expected Friday. Thanks to the new rule enacted earlier Thursday, a simple majority was needed.

"This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court," Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor, accusing Democrats of trying to inflict political damage on Trump and to keep more conservatives from joining the high court.

"In 20 or 30 or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court, a day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation and consensus," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.

McConnell initiated the rules change by raising a point of order asserting that simple-majority votes should advance Supreme Court nominees to final confirmation votes. Democrats tried to delay it by offering motions to postpone a vote and to adjourn the chamber, but both fell short as Republicans stayed unified.

Earlier Thursday, McConnell said the rules change would restore the Senate’s tradition of considering a Supreme Court nominee based on credentials instead of ideology. He called the Democratic filibuster of Goruch “a radical move” and something “completely unprecedented in the history of our Senate.”  “This threatened filibuster cannot be allowed to succeed or to continue for the sake of the Senate, for the sake of the court and for the sake our country,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Democrats successfully blocked Gorsuch’s nomination from getting 60 votes earlier Thursday morning, prompting Republicans to go “nuclear” and change the rules to allow Gorsuch and future Supreme Court nominees to clear the Senate with only a simple majority.  Democrats tried to delay the rules change vote by offering motions to postpone a vote and to adjourn the chamber, but both fell short as Republicans stayed unified.

Democrat senators Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.) voted with Republicans to allow President Trumps’s pick to move forward. 

Republicans defended the party-line vote on the nuclear option, saying Democrats were to blame for blocking Gorsuch, who they believe is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) argued that Democrats should “come to their senses.” 

“The truth of the matter is that throughout this process, the minority led by their leader has been desperately searching for a justification for their preplanned filibuster,” he said ahead of Thursday’s votes.

McConnell added that the current stalemate was part of a decades-long Democratic effort to “politicize the courts and the confirmation process.”  “The opposition to this particular nominee is more about the man that nominated him and the party he represents than the nominee himself,” he said.

Republicans hinted for weeks that President Trump’s nominee would be confirmed one way or another. McConnell confirmed during a leadership press conference that he had the votes to go “nuclear” if needed.

According to The Hill, Republicans appeared resigned to the tactics, arguing if Democrats won’t support Gorsuch — who received the American Bar Association’s highest rating — they won’t allow any GOP nominee to join the Supreme Court.

* * *

The Republican-backed rule change on Thursday maintains the ability to filibuster legislation. In the past, the nuclear option has been averted when moderates in the two parties compromised to avoid a showdown, but the ferocious partisanship in Washington now made that impossible.

Experts said eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments could make it more likely that presidents, with little incentive to choose centrist justices who could attract support from the other party, will pick ideologically extreme nominees in the future.

Ending the filibuster also would make it easier for future Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed when the president and Senate leadership belong to the same party.

With the failure of Republican healthcare legislation in Congress and with federal courts blocking the president"s ban on people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States, securing Gorsuch"s confirmation took on even greater importance for Trump, who took office in January.

* * *

Senate confirmation of Gorsuch, 49, would restore the nine-seat court"s 5-4 conservative majority, enabling Trump to leave an indelible mark on America"s highest judicial body and fulfill a top campaign promise by the Republican president. Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades.

The court"s ideological leaning could help determine the outcome of cases involving the death penalty, abortion, gun control, environmental regulations, transgender rights, voting rights, immigration, religious liberty, presidential powers and more.

The nine-seat Supreme Court has had a vacancy since conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016.