Page 32 - Second Amendment Case News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

If we're going to intervene if a conflict, it better pose a direct threat to our interests that most americans will know where the hot spot is on the globe and will quickly understand why we're getting involved. the threat should be so direct that our leaders should be able to make the case clearly and concisely and goes on to write, at the same time, we must not get involved in a long festering conflict for humanitarian reasons. does this appear to reach then citizen trump's thresholds? >> we're seeing that just with the shakeup in the national security council this week the stakes are so hig...

Right. it says that. i was quoting buckley, i'm sure, our citing buckley to that effect. the question is what level of scrutiny should we apply to that case. buckley suggests it's something less than strict scrutiny in the first amendment context for contributions. that's the instruction that i as lower court judge have in the first amendment context this. an equal protection challenge. it's not just contributions. it's the inequality of contributions that's the problem here. that this system favors major party candidates over minor party candidates. normally with a fundamental right in equal ...

Better than writing a dissent to your own opinion, but you wrote a concurrence to your opinion. to me, this move, if, as you imply in your concurrent -- you don't imply. you say, it could have titanic real world implications when it comes to our 13500 casesos on the book since 1948. in your book you say you don't overturn precedent unless it is universally accepted affirmed by courts repeatedly and people have extensive reliance on the decision. my question is why you are concurring -- senator feinstein asked you about the case. i got your answer, and that was good. in your concurring opinion ...

Latest updates on this topic from reliable sources.

You apply the normal strict scrutiny. and i pointed to two wonderful pins by judges in the area -- >> okay. all right. i really did read it. here's the -- okay. i understand that. here's the deal. the other judges were happy to decide it on the narrow basis. you write the concurring opinion to bring up this other issue. i think again about justice white, who is your mentor or was your boss and, there is a law review article from the dean of tulane time and time again justice white avoided broad theoretical basis for a decision when a narrow fact specific rationale would suffice. and yet you wr...