https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-does-not-belong-supreme-court-says-retired-223332896.html

(Reuters) - Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court, the Palm Beach Post reported.
Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested he lacks the temperament for the job.
Stevens, a lifelong Republican, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
"At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said at the event hosted by a Palm Beach Post reporter.
“I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability ... I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”
Commentators, Stevens said, have argued that Kavanaugh’s blistering testimony during a Sept. 27 hearing on sexual misconduct allegations demonstrated a potential for political bias should he serve on the Supreme Court.
Stevens said political leaders and the court have failed to repair the nation’s confidence in the judicial branch’s separation from the president and the legislature.
“I think it’s worse, I regret to say it,” he said.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Friday. An FBI report to the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh by California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford and former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez.
(Reporting by Bill Tarrant; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-does-not-belong-supreme-court-says-retired-223332896.html

(Reuters) - Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court, the Palm Beach Post reported.
Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested he lacks the temperament for the job.
Stevens, a lifelong Republican, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
"At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said at the event hosted by a Palm Beach Post reporter.
“I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability ... I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”
Commentators, Stevens said, have argued that Kavanaugh’s blistering testimony during a Sept. 27 hearing on sexual misconduct allegations demonstrated a potential for political bias should he serve on the Supreme Court.
Stevens said political leaders and the court have failed to repair the nation’s confidence in the judicial branch’s separation from the president and the legislature.
“I think it’s worse, I regret to say it,” he said.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Friday. An FBI report to the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh by California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford and former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez.
(Reporting by Bill Tarrant; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-does-not-belong-supreme-court-says-retired-223332896.html

(Reuters) - Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court, the Palm Beach Post reported.
Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested he lacks the temperament for the job.
Stevens, a lifelong Republican, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
"At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said at the event hosted by a Palm Beach Post reporter.
“I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability ... I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”
Commentators, Stevens said, have argued that Kavanaugh’s blistering testimony during a Sept. 27 hearing on sexual misconduct allegations demonstrated a potential for political bias should he serve on the Supreme Court.
Stevens said political leaders and the court have failed to repair the nation’s confidence in the judicial branch’s separation from the president and the legislature.
“I think it’s worse, I regret to say it,” he said.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Friday. An FBI report to the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh by California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford and former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez.
(Reporting by Bill Tarrant; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

The second amendment calls for an armed militia in place of a permanent freestanding army. Since we chose to have a permanent freestanding army the second amendment serves no practical purpose and might as well be done away with.

Snip>>James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Patrick Henry: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Commonwealth of Virginia in 1788: “… that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

Pennsylvania Convention: “… as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.”

U.S. State Department website: “Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth.”