Open questions to Governor Johnson
Governor Johnson,
I have supported you, I argue in your favor with many people. I point out that a vote for you is not wasted, even though many of my friends vehemently disagree. So what gives?
Your running mate has stated that we need more Constitutionalist Judges, like Justice Breyer, on the Supreme Court. I get that you all are farther left socially than I am. I am okay with that, I have reconciled it, and argue over that with many socially and religiously conservative friends. I am not okay with Justice Breyer, who seems to make up precedent out of air. As if that wasn't an affront too far, Weld has also intimated that Garland, yes, Merrick Garland, nominated by the most tyrannical president ever, would be a good pick. Really? Garland, the DC Circuit judge that wrote the opinion that was overturned in Heller? I do think the Senate should give him a hearing, contrary to what they say now. I can see it like this.
Senator: Judge Garland, I have one question for you. Do you feel that the Supreme Court, in overturning your decision in the Heller case, thus setting precedent, was wrong?
Garland: I can't answer that, it may come up in the court again.
Senator: I am not asking about a future case. I am asking about a case where your logic was shredded by some of the best minds to ever sit on the bench, completely destroying your feeble attempt at snuffing out the 2nd amendment. How did you feel when the Heller decision was announced?
Garland: I can't answer...
Senator: I have to stop you from repeating your non-answer. I want to know how you felt when you were intellectually body slammed by someone who's boots you aren't worthy to lick. Well?
Garland: I...
Senator: As the judge doesn't have crayons to write his answer down, I think we can assume that he would vote as he did on the DC Circuit bench to overturn the 2nd Amendment.
Go to a vote, he is voted down. Please tell me that Weld was shooting from the hip, (pun intended) and not speaking for you.
In the Gillette debate, you argued that it was acceptable for government to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. Austin Petersen called you out on this blatant disregard for Civil Liberty, and you stood by your answer. I don't know if you have honestly looked at a path to victory, but I believe that the only path for victory for you is through the House of Representatives. The only way to do that is to win a few red and blue states, denying the electoral majority to either Trump or Clinton. I actually think it is a viable strategy, as I think that NM is definitely winnable, UT could be in play, as they don't care for Trump. If you focused on an inter-mountain strategy, working to win states like UT, CO, NM, ID, MT, and NV, that could cause some serious chaos, as it draws from both sides.
But...
If you think that Civil Liberties for some at the expense of others is appropriate, then you are no Libertarian. Yes, I am new to the movement, I realized that my desire to impose my religious beliefs on others was wrong, and I work to advocate the position of not codifying into statute my faith. But I can tell you this. Advocating a government enforced subservience of religious belief to whatever is the mantra of the day will take you out of play for UT, ID, and maybe even NV.
Do you understand that when you talk about being the same as Bernie on social issues is troubling? Bernie would enforce at gunpoint (meaning the use of government force, laws, taxes, jails, and guns) his views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. He did not advocate the live and let live of the Libertarian movement. IS that REALLY where you are?
Senator Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act, because it FORCED control of property from business owners. They could no longer cater to the people they wanted. And Goldwater was pro gay way before it was cool, contrary to his party (really at that time, either party) from way back. DO YOU ADVOCATE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT (at the point of a gun) ON PRIVATE BUSINESS? You say you don't, but yet stand against a photographer who didn't want to participate in a gay wedding. It appears that you feel some civil rights are more important than others. Or to put it another way, all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others. Care to clarify?
I have supported you, I argue in your favor with many people. I point out that a vote for you is not wasted, even though many of my friends vehemently disagree. So what gives?
Your running mate has stated that we need more Constitutionalist Judges, like Justice Breyer, on the Supreme Court. I get that you all are farther left socially than I am. I am okay with that, I have reconciled it, and argue over that with many socially and religiously conservative friends. I am not okay with Justice Breyer, who seems to make up precedent out of air. As if that wasn't an affront too far, Weld has also intimated that Garland, yes, Merrick Garland, nominated by the most tyrannical president ever, would be a good pick. Really? Garland, the DC Circuit judge that wrote the opinion that was overturned in Heller? I do think the Senate should give him a hearing, contrary to what they say now. I can see it like this.
Senator: Judge Garland, I have one question for you. Do you feel that the Supreme Court, in overturning your decision in the Heller case, thus setting precedent, was wrong?
Garland: I can't answer that, it may come up in the court again.
Senator: I am not asking about a future case. I am asking about a case where your logic was shredded by some of the best minds to ever sit on the bench, completely destroying your feeble attempt at snuffing out the 2nd amendment. How did you feel when the Heller decision was announced?
Garland: I can't answer...
Senator: I have to stop you from repeating your non-answer. I want to know how you felt when you were intellectually body slammed by someone who's boots you aren't worthy to lick. Well?
Garland: I...
Senator: As the judge doesn't have crayons to write his answer down, I think we can assume that he would vote as he did on the DC Circuit bench to overturn the 2nd Amendment.
Go to a vote, he is voted down. Please tell me that Weld was shooting from the hip, (pun intended) and not speaking for you.
In the Gillette debate, you argued that it was acceptable for government to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. Austin Petersen called you out on this blatant disregard for Civil Liberty, and you stood by your answer. I don't know if you have honestly looked at a path to victory, but I believe that the only path for victory for you is through the House of Representatives. The only way to do that is to win a few red and blue states, denying the electoral majority to either Trump or Clinton. I actually think it is a viable strategy, as I think that NM is definitely winnable, UT could be in play, as they don't care for Trump. If you focused on an inter-mountain strategy, working to win states like UT, CO, NM, ID, MT, and NV, that could cause some serious chaos, as it draws from both sides.
But...
If you think that Civil Liberties for some at the expense of others is appropriate, then you are no Libertarian. Yes, I am new to the movement, I realized that my desire to impose my religious beliefs on others was wrong, and I work to advocate the position of not codifying into statute my faith. But I can tell you this. Advocating a government enforced subservience of religious belief to whatever is the mantra of the day will take you out of play for UT, ID, and maybe even NV.
Do you understand that when you talk about being the same as Bernie on social issues is troubling? Bernie would enforce at gunpoint (meaning the use of government force, laws, taxes, jails, and guns) his views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. He did not advocate the live and let live of the Libertarian movement. IS that REALLY where you are?
Senator Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act, because it FORCED control of property from business owners. They could no longer cater to the people they wanted. And Goldwater was pro gay way before it was cool, contrary to his party (really at that time, either party) from way back. DO YOU ADVOCATE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT (at the point of a gun) ON PRIVATE BUSINESS? You say you don't, but yet stand against a photographer who didn't want to participate in a gay wedding. It appears that you feel some civil rights are more important than others. Or to put it another way, all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others. Care to clarify?
Comments
Post a Comment