View Full Version : Justice Scalia dead
Rooskibar03
02-13-2016, 16:15
Breaking news.
Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch.
Very not good.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=email-mobile
That sucks! RIP Justice Scalia
Wow and wow. Condolences. What happens now?
King Obongo appoints another one
HoneyBadger
02-13-2016, 16:28
Wow and wow. Condolences. What happens now?
King Obongo appoints another one
This is about the worst political thing that could have happened in 2016.
Let's hope not Justice Clinton...
Rooskibar03
02-13-2016, 16:28
This will flip the balence of the court. Like I said, not good.
Stock up on what you can afford, and then some more.
Not good news at all. Scalia was not a fan of bending the Constitution to mean something other than what the authors intended.
What happens now?
Obama gets to appoint his replacement.
Prayers go out to his family and this nation.
When the Chief Justice dies in office or is otherwise unwilling or unable to serve, the duties of the Chief Justice temporarily are performed by the most senior sitting associate justice, who acts as Chief Justice until a new Chief Justice is confirmed.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#cite_note-Pettys-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#cite_note-4) Currently, Anthony Kennedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy) is the most senior associate justice.
From Wiki
When the Chief Justice dies in office or is otherwise unwilling or unable to serve, the duties of the Chief Justice temporarily are performed by the most senior sitting associate justice, who acts as Chief Justice until a new Chief Justice is confirmed.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#cite_note-Pettys-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#cite_note-4) Currently, Anthony Kennedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy) is the most senior associate justice.
From Wiki
Although he is not the Chief Justice. That would be Roberts.
Although he is not the Chief Justice. That would be Roberts.
you are correct
Great-Kazoo
02-13-2016, 16:41
This puts not 1 but 2 seats in D. hands. 1 for Scalia, 1 for Hillary to appoint.
https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M8663ebcc17c53badbede002fdd78a3a5o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300
mightiestmouse
02-13-2016, 16:43
Not all hope is lost...
Whoever is appointed will have to go through the Senate judiciary committee first (controlled by Republicans), before any sort of vote is done in the Senate (again, controlled by the Republicans). While I agree that this is one of the worst things that could happen, it will be a very difficult thing to get done with the election coming up. I also have no idea what happens is one is nominated by a sitting president and is not confirmed before another president takes office... do they get to retract the old nominee? Here is to hoping that there is enough backbone in the R's to keep a liberal judge off the bench and not confirm a new justice for the sake of confirming one. Someone might also chime in if they know how long a vacancy can stand in the supreme court and what happens with any cases they are currently hearing.
There are two more ready to drop dead too. Let's just hope that happens after November.
R.I.P. Great defender of our constitution.
We are so fucked now. So, so, so fucked.
sellersm
02-13-2016, 16:56
Not all hope is lost...
Whoever is appointed will have to go through the Senate judiciary committee first (controlled by Republicans), before any sort of vote is done in the Senate (again, controlled by the Republicans). While I agree that this is one of the worst things that could happen, it will be a very difficult thing to get done with the election coming up. I also have no idea what happens is one is nominated by a sitting president and is not confirmed before another president takes office... do they get to retract the old nominee? Here is to hoping that there is enough backbone in the R's to keep a liberal judge off the bench and not confirm a new justice for the sake of confirming one. Someone might also chime in if they know how long a vacancy can stand in the supreme court and what happens with any cases they are currently hearing.
Hmmm, the Repubics control something? That makes a difference? I don't share your optimism... Another step on the path.
Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk
BPTactical
02-13-2016, 16:57
Not all hope is lost...
Whoever is appointed will have to go through the Senate judiciary committee first (controlled by Republicans), before any sort of vote is done in the Senate (again, controlled by the Republicans). While I agree that this is one of the worst things that could happen, it will be a very difficult thing to get done with the election coming up. I also have no idea what happens is one is nominated by a sitting president and is not confirmed before another president takes office... do they get to retract the old nominee? Here is to hoping that there is enough backbone in the R's to keep a liberal judge off the bench and not confirm a new justice for the sake of confirming one. Someone might also chime in if they know how long a vacancy can stand in the supreme court and what happens with any cases they are currently hearing.
[ROFL3]
And your holding out hope that the "R" side of the aisle stands up to JugEars?
Just like they repealed the "Affordable Care Act" right?
And defunded Planned Parenhood?
Our only hope is that the appointment can be stalled for 11 months IF a conservative candidate is elected.
This could seriously be a death rattle for this Democratic Republic.
Just imagine this- Justice Holder or Justice Jarret....
With the Senate in the hands of the Republicans, they may be able to drag out the process for a year. It should be interesting when the short list gets floated to the press.
Kraven251
02-13-2016, 17:04
I picked a good time to start reloading. ...but a bad time to be in debt on a new car
BlasterBob
02-13-2016, 17:07
Sorry to hear that anyone has died but if it had to be one of those Justices, too bad it wasn't that little old crow with her prune face.
Yep, better stock up NOW!
Let's hope not Justice Clinton...
He he just called it, that's how she is going to avoid jail and get lifetime pay.
SamuraiCO
02-13-2016, 17:17
Election just got real. Will be front and center for debate tonight. Yes I also hope the R's grow a pair and Borke anyone Obama puts forth.
Madeinhb
02-13-2016, 17:19
If Sotomayor and Kegan can get on the bench. Hell anyone can. Scary times.
Rooskibar03
02-13-2016, 17:24
If Sotomayor and Kegan can get on the bench. Hell anyone can. Scary times.
Exactly. Justice Holder? Or What about Valerie Jarrett?
Zundfolge
02-13-2016, 17:24
Well that's it. America is done. A liberal SCOTUS will kill what's left of the Constitution in short order no matter who wins in November.
Prepare for war folks, because that's all we have left.
KestrelBike
02-13-2016, 17:27
This is about the worst political thing that could have happened in 2016.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rip to justice Scalia, but this is super bad.
Aloha_Shooter
02-13-2016, 17:40
This is about the worst political thing that could have happened in 2016. Thiis. Just heard this. The Republicans will be pressed to affirm whoever Obama appoints so the Court can meet normally in October. We needed Ginsburg to pass on, not Scalia. this is very very bad for Constitutionalism and freedom.
Man!!!! I can't afford to finish what I need to get done right now.
Do you think they will really pull an Australia on us?
Really???
To be honest, I'm ready to see it burnt to the ground.
This seriously ruined my weekend.
Well that's it. America is done. A liberal SCOTUS will kill what's left of the Constitution in short order no matter who wins in November.
Prepare for war folks, because that's all we have left.
Well not all we have left. But I agree with your first paragraph.
McConnell says it's going to wait until the next President
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg
But I don't know if I believe that. Obama has accomplished too much outside the bounds of process/law.
"Do you think they will really pull an Australia on us?"
Yes, I think the potential of this just got very, very real..
In a swift statement designed to warn Barack Obama against even nominating a replacement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged to sit on his hands for the remaining 11 months of the president's term.
Aloha_Shooter
02-13-2016, 18:03
As I think about it ... the real loss to the Court isn't his conservatism but his powerful intellect. No one else on that court has his penetrating insights or writes as powerfully. The Court can still run as retired Justices can fill in (and have in the past) and McConnell is going to need that to keep Obama from forcing him to acquiesce to another unqualified appointment. The Supreme Court issue usually doesn't motivate conservatives to the voting booths (or they should have turned out to prevent Obama's election and reelection) but it does motivate Democrat voters. That could be another bad sign for this election -- or good if the GOP can hold its ground and motivate non-liberal voters to keep Bernie/Hillary/Warren out of the Oval Office.
Lol so much doom and gloom. Come on guys. Nothing has even happened yet.
KestrelBike
02-13-2016, 18:10
Election just got real. Will be front and center for debate tonight. Yes I also hope the R's grow a pair and Borke anyone Obama puts forth.
Why do I have the feeling that obummer & co will be able to get the "(R)" senate to ramrod his pick through before next January? Names of "ayes" will definitely need to be kept on a list.
eta:
But I don't know if I believe that. Obama has accomplished too much outside the bounds of process/law. That's what I'm thinking.
Zundfolge
02-13-2016, 18:14
McConnell says it's going to wait until the next President
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg
Not holding my breath because McConnell is a squishy little toad ... but if he holds to this one thing (and we don't get a Democrat winner in November) then we may yet survive ... and I'll officially forgive McConnel for all his previous squishy toadness.
No breaks for the Senate for the next 12 months. Obama will use the opening for a recessed appointment.
blacklabel
02-13-2016, 18:23
Lol so much doom and gloom. Come on guys. Nothing has even happened yet.
There's not much reason to be optimistic.
I just wish I were ready to buy stocks in case the market goes down on Monday from people worrying.
If Sotomayor and Kegan can get on the bench. Hell anyone can. Scary times.
^THIS!
"Do you think they will really pull an Australia on us?"
Yes, I think the potential of this just got very, very real..
It would have zero legitimacy which doesn't necessarily make it less likely.
It's an individual right (Heller).
Incorporated against the states (McDonald).
The only wiggle room is in "unusual and dangerous" (which should have been settled with Miller).
But again, this is the Court that said the word "state" as defined in a 2010 law did not mean state.
Zundfolge
02-13-2016, 18:50
Here's an interesting thought ... if McConnell sticks to his guns and its clear that Scalia's replacement won't be determined until the next administration, what if Donald Trump would come out and say "If Elected I will nominate Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court"?
Hell I'd gladly put a Trump sign in my yard then.
KestrelBike
02-13-2016, 18:56
Here's an interesting thought ... if McConnell sticks to his guns and its clear that Scalia's replacement won't be determined until the next administration, what if Donald Trump would come out and say "If Elected I will nominate Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court"?
Hell I'd gladly put a Trump sign in my yard then.
Thinking about the Senate, we got Ted Cruz (TX) (who has been a staunch 2A defender even before Trump came alone) and Rand Paul (KY) who have proven to be effective fillibusters (when they choose to). That said, hopefully Cruz keeps his priorities straight. (for the record, I'd like Cruz for potus).
It was a pretty good ride, America. God knows, I won't live to see another one.
hurley842002
02-13-2016, 19:07
Justice Scalia dead
https://www.ar-15.co/showthread.php?t=154404
Bailey Guns
02-13-2016, 19:15
Lol so much doom and gloom. Come on guys. Nothing has even happened yet.
Exactly. Jesus...stop with all the drama. Justice Scalia will be known as one of the finest Supreme Court Justices in the history of our country. I'm terribly saddened and, yes, a little concerned for the future of the court, too. Having said that, it shouldn't be too terribly hard to keep any Obama nominee out of any confirmation hearing until a new president is sworn in. Even McConnell should be able to handle that.
And for all of you who think you're "sending a message" by not voting or voting 3rd party, this is a prime example...I can't even think of anything better...for not doing that.
Otherwise we could be looking at President Clinton II nominating a justice...potentially Barack Obama...to the court.
It's really hard for me to feel this way, too...the stalling of a SCOTUS nomination is something I don't think should be done. One of the perks of the presidency, outlined in the Constitution, is the opportunity to nominate justices to the federal courts. And generally I feel all nominees should be given a fair "Up" or "Down" vote. But in the case of Barack Obama I just can't bring myself to get too worked up over it if the Senate torpedoes a nomination. Probably why I wouldn't be a good justice.
The good news? It takes 60 votes to confirm a justice. That's a pretty tough nut to crack for an extremely divisive democrat president who's party only holds 46 seats.
I'm not gonna panic just yet. But I will miss the best Justice to ever hold office in my lifetime.
Zundfolge
02-13-2016, 19:21
...it shouldn't be too terribly hard to keep any Obama nominee out of any confirmation hearing until a new president is sworn in. Even McConnell should be able to handle that.
The current record for length of time a Senate has held up a nomination is 125 days.
This ruined my day. Poor timing. I know I'll miss his good sense.
PugnacAutMortem
02-13-2016, 19:55
I have a question, when was the last time that the conservatively held Supreme Court ruled on a decision that has positively affected any of your day to day lives? Honest question, because the only other thing I can think of in recent memory that the SCOTUS ruled on that affected anybody's day to day lives on here was ruling that the ACA wasn't a tax and therefore was constitutional. That affected a ton people on here extremely negatively, but wasn't that the same Supreme Court as we had yesterday? I just don't see the big doom and gloom problem with a lot of these federal posts that people lose their minds over. It RARELY affects your day to day lives. And even if it did most of us would probably just go on living like it didn't.
However, it's never a good thing when someone passes, so RIP.
hurley842002
02-13-2016, 19:56
Repost #2
"What difference does it make?"
If Senate delays an appointment past November, Hillary will just put in her choice.
Face it, 8 years of Hillary, then 8 years of Chelsea. We're all fucked.
Gcompact30
02-13-2016, 20:01
RIP and thanks for serving your Country
theGinsue
02-13-2016, 20:04
For those of you who don't see the possible problems here or are saying folks are being too dramatic, consider that we won in the Heller a d Macdonald decisions by a 5-4 vote each time. With Justice Scalia's passing the court is currently split evenly. While unusual, and previously decided that it requires more than just the belief that a previous decision was improperly made, the Supreme Court CAN reverse its previous decisions. It just takes one changed vote. Given the agenda of the Left, I'm not particularly hopeful that as unusual as it might be that reversing it's previous decisions wouldn't be something undertaken by a left-leaning SCOTUS. In fact, I'd expect such behavior. The balance it currently even, but that will change once a new Justice is appointed. Whether this goes left or right will depend on The Senate and the outcome of the next Presidential election.
What's worse is it's still expected that 2 Justices will retire in short order; one of those being Justice Kennedy who was appointed by Reagan. If the Senate doesn't hold the line on the next appointment until the after the election the vacant seat will surely go to a liberal, turning the balance of power to the left. At that point, even if a conservative is elected as our next POTUS, we'd still be outweighed in the SCOTUS at 5-4. But, if a liberal takes the election, then they'd likely get at least 1 appointment which would put the balance at 6-3 (or worse) in the liberals favor. This could be a nearly potentially irreversible power change in favor of the liberals for at least a couple of decades.
Folks, most of the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution, freedoms that you continue to enjoy, are only still valid because of narrow victories in SCOTUS. The liberals goal is to dismantle the Constitution and the SCOTUS has been the only thing standing in their way. With a re-balanace to their favor, that protection ends.
Am I concerned about this current situation? Yes, I'd be foolish or naive not to be.
Lots of bad things can happen from all sorts of situations. It does me zero benefit to spend even a second worrying about things I can't change. Just keep moving forward to carve out a little piece of the world for myself. If obstacles never came up, everyone would already be there.
Bailey Guns
02-13-2016, 20:28
I have a question, when was the last time that the conservatively held Supreme Court ruled on a decision that has positively affected any of your day to day lives?
You should probably Google that if you don't know. There are quite a few.
Anything the SCOTUS takes on that results in a 4 to 4 vote will revert back to the lower courts decision. So now the lower courts, potentially, will have more power. So keep an eye on the liberal appellate courts. Their rulings are what we may be living under.
KestrelBike
02-13-2016, 20:53
The current record for length of time a Senate has held up a nomination is 125 days.
Source please? If so, we're f'ed. I do not trust the ability of our senate one damned bit to uphold their end of the bargain. I agree with Bailey 110% about not voting 3rd party, but if they get to shove in another sotomayor/rbg (kagen sometimes shows brief, distant lightning-flashes of intelligence, at least on paper) then I will have lost a f*ckton of faith in a "republican" legislature. What good's voting them out if they keep f'ing us over? We've had 2 major victories in congress (2010 house, 2014 senate) yet things are worse than ever. A leftist SCJ appointment before Jan 2017 will be the last straw.
I have a question, when was the last time that the conservatively held Supreme Court ruled on a decision that has positively affected any of your day to day lives? Honest question, because the only other thing I can think of in recent memory that the SCOTUS ruled on that affected anybody's day to day lives on here was ruling that the ACA wasn't a tax and therefore was constitutional. That affected a ton people on here extremely negatively, but wasn't that the same Supreme Court as we had yesterday? I just don't see the big doom and gloom problem with a lot of these federal posts that people lose their minds over. It RARELY affects your day to day lives. And even if it did most of us would probably just go on living like it didn't.
However, it's never a good thing when someone passes, so RIP.
Texas V. Johnson has protected us in ways that we can't see. It isn't always "Oh the Supremes just put bread in our basket!" but more like "The Supremes just stopped a gang from taking bread out of our basket." Just like Miller. ETA: This was also a 5-4 opinion, btw, in which Reagan-appointed "R" Sandra Day O'Connor voted for the dissent.
It's pretty easy to see how this can go bad. The Supremes have already ruled that we have to buy a product (health insurance) because it is a "tax".
The Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means.
For those of you who don't see the possible problems here or are saying folks are being too dramatic, consider that we won in the Heller a d Macdonald decisions by a 5-4 vote each time.
[snip]
Am I concerned about this current situation? Yes, I'd be foolish or naive not to be.
I agree it's worse than just "troublesome." There is a good chance ARs and maybe even semi-auto rifles will now be banned. Even better chance that the net is cast even wider on "prohibited persons" with less due process.
But my point on page 4 is that we aren't going to Australia style confiscation just yet without the government (the Executive and Legislation have already lost credibility) losing all credibility. I would hope such an act would create grave consequences. But I am surprised each day with how much BS people take even knowing where this goes.
The battle now will be Liberals feeling that Obama's nominee should sail right onto the Court and calling anyone who disagrees a racist while Conservatives are trying to hold out until Nov (and longer if a Republican wins). I could see Ginsburg making things really interesting if she announces her retirement before then as well--Obama would have the opportunity to seat four Justices and turn the court 6-3 in his favor.
Scalia's death could change court on abortion, race, climate
Colorado struck down a local voucher program last year on those grounds, as has the Florida Supreme Court. Scalia, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy had indicated a willingness to accept the argument that banning state lawmakers from funding religious schools, if a democratic majority wants to, would impede the free exercise of religion.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scalia-death-how-will-the-supreme-court-change-219256#ixzz406pa2DzL
So we had a chance to get our school vouchers back too.
Rooskibar03
02-13-2016, 22:02
Odumbo announced he will appoint new justice.
Let at the madness begin. Saddle up boys, it's gonna get bumpy.
It's entirely possible BHO will trample on Scalia's grave and appoint in two weeks during the recess.
hurley842002
02-13-2016, 22:25
It's entirely possible BHO will trample on Scalia's grave and appoint in two weeks during the recess.
Not to be disrespectful to Scalia, but rigor mortis has barely set in, and Obama is talking about appointing someone. SUPER CLASSY!
Zundfolge
02-13-2016, 22:34
It's entirely possible BHO will trample on Scalia's grave and appoint in two weeks during the recess.
If he appoints a supreme court justice during the recess and the American people don't instantly erupt into civil war then Americans deserve to lose their liberty.
hurley842002
02-13-2016, 22:38
If he appoints a supreme court justice during the recess and the American people don't instantly erupt into civil war then Americans deserve to lose their liberty.
Riiiiiiiight:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160214/a4c0e83b742eb916676e5f1878a281b2.jpg
Great-Kazoo
02-13-2016, 22:46
Riiiiiiiight:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160214/a4c0e83b742eb916676e5f1878a281b2.jpg
How true, How Sad.
If you have a beard and can't change a tire by yourself, turn in your man card.
As I get older, those knobby mudders on my F250 get heavier. I try to get the height just so that I only need to get the tire up a few inches to get them on the lugs.
And I shaved my beard off.
Recess appointments expire during the next session the Senate is in session. I'm encouraged that several Republican senators have come out and said that the next Justice will not be appointed by this President. I just hope they have the spine left to make it so.
It's the last straw to break the camels back. Welcome the dawn of socialism - I've long said this Obama presidency hung on the balance of the SC judges - if any of the five were to die, fate is pretty much sealed.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but in this circumstance I damn well hope several independent medical examiners conduct detailed autopsies. Scalia would have been the #1 target on the list of many, many democrats. If there was any judge that masses of them wished dead at every other moment, it was him.
This. I am deeply saddened by this. Beyond that we are deeply fucked. I am anything but a conspiracy theorist, but this is odd. If there was ever a target, Scalia was at the top of the list.
Again, buy now. Buy a lot. The chair might not be against the wall, but God damn its getting pushed across the room - and Johns mustache is coming in nicely.
Zundfolge
02-13-2016, 23:08
Riiiiiiiight:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160214/a4c0e83b742eb916676e5f1878a281b2.jpg
Yeah, that's what we're up against ... we should be able to forcibly take this country back with 3 old ladies packing lever action rifles.
hurley842002
02-13-2016, 23:12
Yeah, that's what we're up against ... we should be able to forcibly take this country back with 3 old ladies packing lever action rifles.
Lol, I've got a Marlin 30-30 and a tough as nails 85 year old I'll donate.
RIP justice Scalia. You will be missed greatly.
HoneyBadger
02-13-2016, 23:53
Lol, I've got a Marlin 30-30 and a tough as nails 85 year old I'll donate.
Mother in law? [ROFL1]
What a terrible time to be unemployed... Anyone know of manufacturing companies in the Denver area that might need a Project Engineer/Manager or and Automation/Manufacturing Engineer?[panic]
hurley842002
02-14-2016, 00:16
Mother in law? [ROFL1]
Lol nah we aren't that old, my grandma. Besides, I said tough as nails, not crazy as f$@k!
Lol nah we aren't that old, my grandma. Besides, I said tough as nails, not crazy as f$@k!
[LOL]
As I get older, those knobby mudders on my F250 get heavier. I try to get the height just so that I only need to get the tire up a few inches to get them on the lugs.
And I shaved my beard off.
Recess appointments expire during the next session the Senate is in session. I'm encouraged that several Republican senators have come out and said that the next Justice will not be appointed by this President. I just hope they have the spine left to make it so.
Would a recess appointment help obama expedite some things through the court?
Found where Eisenhower did some recess appointments that were later confirmed by the Senate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_Supreme_Court_candidates
If the pResident does a recess appointment and the GOP holds the Senate at the start of the next session I don't see why the majority would have to uphold the recess appointment. Of course I'm talking about the same limp noodles who passed the pResidents budget and other BS.
Bailey Guns
02-14-2016, 07:51
^^ Easy to read article from SCOTUSBlog that explains what can, and can't, be done with a recess appt. Probably isn't going to do Obama much good to do that.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/
Would a recess appointment help obama expedite some things through the court?
If the Senate never goes into recess he can't do a recess appointment. The USSC already spanked him on that. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0
Mike
^^ Thank you
^^^ Ditto, all is not lost (yet).
buffalobo
02-14-2016, 09:03
Disturbing news. Last of constitutionalists. RIP Justice Scalia.
More turbulence ahead for our country and our liberty.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
hollohas
02-14-2016, 09:10
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but in this circumstance I damn well hope several independent medical examiners conduct detailed autopsies. Scalia would have been the #1 target on the list of many, many democrats. If there was any judge that masses of them wished dead at every other moment, it was him.
And what are the odds he would die on the very day a scheduled recess starts, a time BO has historically attempted to abuse?
If BO doesn't make a recess appointment, I'll take that back. But if he does, I'll remain skeptical.
^^^ Ditto, all is not lost (yet).
True.
I think all this hand-wringing is fruitless right now, we have to wait and see what happens.
Use your hand-wringing energy to take an inventory of whatever it is you think will be impacted later, if you don't have enough to suit you buy some more. As I have said before, if you're worried about guns don't buy a big screen tv, buy a gun instead or ammo or reloading stuff. You don't need a tv, you're gonna need a rifle.
KestrelBike
02-14-2016, 09:34
True.
I think all this hand-wringing is fruitless right now, we have to wait and see what happens.
Use your hand-wringing energy to take an inventory of whatever it is you think will be impacted later, if you don't have enough to suit you buy some more. As I have said before, if you're worried about guns don't buy a big screen tv, buy a gun instead or ammo or reloading stuff. You don't need a tv, you're gonna need a rifle.
Or training?
Aloha_Shooter
02-14-2016, 09:39
Recess appointments expire during the next session the Senate is in session. I'm encouraged that several Republican senators have come out and said that the next Justice will not be appointed by this President. I just hope they have the spine left to make it so.
That's true for normal appointments. The last time a recess appointment was made to the SCOTUS was Earl Warren -- something Eisenhower noted was the worst mistake he'd ever made.
Or training?
No, having a gun is enough. [Sarcasm2]
Jeffrey Lebowski
02-14-2016, 11:01
It's the last straw to break the camels back. Welcome the dawn of socialism - I've long said this Obama presidency hung on the balance of the SC judges - if any of the five were to die, fate is pretty much sealed.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but in this circumstance I damn well hope several independent medical examiners conduct detailed autopsies. Scalia would have been the #1 target on the list of many, many democrats. If there was any judge that masses of them wished dead at every other moment, it was him.
The comments on social media and news outlets is absolutely sickening. I'm ashamed to be, well, human with some of the things people are saying.
Edit: Would I say the same if it were Ruth or Sotomayor? No, nothing quite like what I've read.
True.
I think all this hand-wringing is fruitless right now, we have to wait and see what happens.
Use your hand-wringing energy to take an inventory of whatever it is you think will be impacted later, if you don't have enough to suit you buy some more. As I have said before, if you're worried about guns don't buy a big screen tv, buy a gun instead or ammo or reloading stuff. You don't need a tv, you're gonna need a rifle.
Well said.
hollohas
02-14-2016, 13:09
The comments on social media and news outlets is absolutely sickening. I'm ashamed to be, well, human with some of the things people are saying.
Edit: Would I say the same if it were Ruth or Sotomayor? No, nothing quite like what I've read.
This is what is most disturbing. Hard core liberals truly do wish harm on conservatives. They don't want to live and let live, they want us eliminated. Theu want us dead. Just like when they were wishing the feds would just go in and kill the folks at the wildlife refuge to end it.
Liberals aren't just the enemies of freedom politically, they truly are our enemies in the truest definition of the word.
wctriumph
02-14-2016, 13:24
RIP Justice Scalia, may God speed.
Do any of you believe or, better question, would any of you actually register or turn in your firearms if a "new" supreme court upheld an Australian or British type scheme? Would you? I will not, under any circumstances, do so.
I am old enough to KNOW what the Constitution says and what it means and any more laws passed that infringe on our rights will be ignored and I believe that, at least within my remaining life span, that any LEO would not even try to enforce any laws like that. Do any of you think that the "Militia" movement would not become larger than ever before?
When the nomination of the new justice candidate is made we must absolutely deluge the senate with our disdain for that candidate. If the senate does actually ask their questions, the meaning of the second amendment is a supremely qualifying question that must be considered and past opinions must be taken into account on the second amendment issue.
III
This is what is most disturbing. Hard core liberals truly do wish harm on conservatives. They don't want to live and let live, they want us eliminated. Theu want us dead. Just like when they were wishing the feds would just go in and kill the folks at the wildlife refuge to end it.
Liberals aren't just the enemies of freedom politically, they truly are our enemies in the truest definition of the word.
This goes on both sides of the aisle. We see it here every single day. I don't want to belabor that point though.
Bailey Guns
02-14-2016, 14:01
This is the period in time when we need a man like Hugo Black. A liberal democrat party senator who became an originalist Supreme Court Justice very similar in ideology to Scalia and truly believed in the original meaning and original interpretation of the Constitution. Obama would get his liberal, we would get another originalist justice.
Original hippies from the 60's and 70's tend to be very libertarian and nearly conservative by today's standards. However, I believe that population is quickly dwindling.
Bailey Guns
02-14-2016, 14:06
^^ Like Hillary Clinton?
BPTactical
02-14-2016, 14:20
RIP Justice Scalia, may God speed.
Do any of you believe or, better question, would any of you actually register or turn in your firearms if a "new" supreme court upheld an Australian or British type scheme? Would you? I will not, under any circumstances, do so.
I am old enough to KNOW what the Constitution says and what it means and any more laws passed that infringe on our rights will be ignored and I believe that, at least within my remaining life span, that any LEO would not even try to enforce any laws like that.
As far as your first paragraph- a "Law" such as you suggest would clearly and plainly NOT be constitutional and therefore wholly invalid.
One is not bound to abide by unconstitutional and invalid law.
As far as the second point quoted, of course there are LE that would enforce unconstitutional and invalid laws.
Their pensions and paychecks are far more important than your rights.
This goes on both sides of the aisle. We see it here every single day. I don't want to belabor that point though.
I have to disagree. Most Conservatives take a "live and let live" approach. If it doesn't effect me, I don't care even when someone else demands I do. The reason Liberals catch hell here is because they insist on reaching into our lives and deciding how we can live. They threaten on a nearly daily basis to make us criminals and ruin our lives for being gun owners. Do we really do the same?
I can also tolerate an opinion with which I don't agree. Even be friendly and amicable with the other party. A Liberal cannot tolerate disagreement even when the point changes through time and they must "get in their faces" at all costs.
Radical transformation means something. It means you have to change even both your will and the law say you don't shouldn't have to. Imagine Conservatives imposing a radical transformation on Liberals? What would that even look like? Imagine abortion rights treated the same way as gun rights (with the same consequences for breaking the law). A balanced budget and tax reform (flat/fair) even. End to welfare without work. Affirmation Action would be over and people would be treated based on who they rather than skin color. Closed borders. Etc, etc, etc...
When we see some of this ^ I'll let you say it goes the same on both sides.
A justice of the peace declared Scalia died of natural causes, without ever seeing the body, and declined an autopsy.
Nope, nuthin' to see here!
Wow. Just wow.
Martinjmpr
02-14-2016, 17:53
This is diverging from the thread topic, but:
Mark my words: You will NEVER see any kind of confiscation scheme, ever. They know it, we know it. A bunch of bubba's want to act tough with "from my cold dead hands" and "Molon Labe" but in reality, peoples imagination in that direction is no more productive and realistic than bronies thinking about prancing around with rainbow dash. (If I got that correct). Flat out, never going to happen. People rising from the dead and eating brains, defying all laws of physics and organic science is more likely to happen first.
I have to agree. What people don't realize about England and Australia is that by the time their firearms confiscation laws went into effect, the % of people who owned guns was already miniscule. If you can get the legal gun owners to down below about 5 - 10 % (and I think 10% would be difficult) then you can pass whatever laws you want restricting guns but as long as anywhere between 35 - 50% of Americans own guns ore belong to families of gun owners (while not necessarily being gun owners themselves) there's no confiscation scheme that has a chance in hell of being implemented.
It's more likely that liberals who want to eventually ban guns will simply try and put more and more roadblocks in front of gun ownership because over time this will cause gun ownership to diminish incrementally: Background checks requirements, restrictions on who you can transfer to and what you can transfer, etc. But it will take decades if not a couple of centuries to diminish gun ownership to the point where confiscation is an option.
^^ Like Hillary Clinton?
I think she lost her morals more and more with each additional dollar made.
I have to agree. What people don't realize about England and Australia is that by the time their firearms confiscation laws went into effect, the % of people who owned guns was already miniscule. If you can get the legal gun owners to down below about 5 - 10 % (and I think 10% would be difficult) then you can pass whatever laws you want restricting guns but as long as anywhere between 35 - 50% of Americans own guns ore belong to families of gun owners (while not necessarily being gun owners themselves) there's no confiscation scheme that has a chance in hell of being implemented.
It's more likely that liberals who want to eventually ban guns will simply try and put more and more roadblocks in front of gun ownership because over time this will cause gun ownership to diminish incrementally: Background checks requirements, restrictions on who you can transfer to and what you can transfer, etc. But it will take decades if not a couple of centuries to diminish gun ownership to the point where confiscation is an option.
I lean towards this train of thought, also. More quiet gun ownwers than loud liberals, and it's a huge money maker.
But it did indeed get much more real.
Great-Kazoo
02-14-2016, 18:31
True.
I think all this hand-wringing is fruitless right now, we have to wait and see what happens.
Use your hand-wringing energy to take an inventory of whatever it is you think will be impacted later, if you don't have enough to suit you buy some more. As I have said before, if you're worried about guns don't buy a big screen tv, buy a gun instead or ammo or reloading stuff. You don't need a tv, you're gonna need a rifle.
How much longer do you want us to wait ;)
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/who-will-obama-nominee-scalia-supreme-court-213450996.html
Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder
Former radical race agitator AND a director who said we can vet syrian refugees carefully . What was it 2-3 days before San Bernadino.. My bad that was Obama saying that in response to questions about terrorist getting by the "vetting system" In the long run, our current flag will end up having holes similar to the one that flew over Ft Sumter . YMMV (your magazine may vary)
How much longer do you want us to wait ;)
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/who-will-obama-nominee-scalia-supreme-court-213450996.html
Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder
Former radical race agitator AND a director who said we can vet syrian refugees carefully . What was it 2-3 days before San Bernadino.. My bad that was Obama saying that in response to questions about terrorist getting by the "vetting system" In the long run, our current flag will end up having holes similar to the one that flew over Ft Sumter . YMMV (your magazine may vary)
Not long eh? The son-of-a-whore is moving fast on this one, almost as fast as setting a tee time.
Of course the list is full of prime examples of the most foul examples of leftist jurisprudence, something the communists excel at.
Bailey Guns
02-14-2016, 20:25
We could probably do a lot worse than Srinivasan. I don't know a lot about him but I know he was a very popular Obama appointee that received a 97-0 vote in the senate confirmation to the appeals court. According to Wiki he clerked for O'Connor but also worked for Gore. He's no Scalia. But then, few if any of that caliber are out there.
ETA: Found this in a NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/politics/sri-srinivasan-nominee-for-federal-court-has-easy-senate-hearing.html?_r=0) (I know, I know...):
When Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, asked whether Mr. Srinivasan believed that the Constitution was a “living document,” the nominee was circumspect. Many Tea Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) conservatives, like Mr. Cruz, believe that adherence to the Constitution’s original meaning is sacrosanct. Mr. Srinivasan replied, “I would say no. The Constitution has an enduring, fixed quality to it.”
Aloha_Shooter
02-14-2016, 20:36
We could probably do a lot worse than Srinivasan. I don't know a lot about him but I know he was a very popular Obama appointee that received a 97-0 vote in the senate confirmation to the appeals court. According to Wiki he clerked for O'Connor but also worked for Gore. He's no Scalia. But then, few if any of that caliber are out there. ETA: Found this in a NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/politics/sri-srinivasan-nominee-for-federal-court-has-easy-senate-hearing.html?_r=0) (I know, I know...): Not sure I believe it. Kagan was circumspect about the topic of same-sex marriage when she was going through confirmation then came out and basically said she'd rule for it after she was installed. Sotomayor was similarly circumspect about how she'd rule on hot-button issues. To be fair, Roberts was similar on liberal hot-button issues but I think it's clear Roberts has ruled for liberal issues more often than Sotomayor or Kagan have ruled for conservative issues.
Bailey Guns
02-14-2016, 20:39
Not an endorsement. Just an observation about a possible, even likely, nominee. I haven't been able to find any real "red flags" on him yet...other than he worked for Gore.
Cibolo Creek Ranch owner recalls Scalia’s last hours in Texas (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cibolo-creek-ranch-owner-recalls-scalia%E2%80%99s-last-hours-in-texas/ar-BBpuxoe?li=BBnb7Kz)
"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.
That sounded really odd to me.
The body of the Supreme Court justice was moved to an El Paso funeral home early Sunday.
The body was driven from Marfa and arrived around 2:30 a.m. at Sunset Funeral Homes, according to spokesman Chris Lujan.
Lujan said the funeral home was chosen by family of the justice, and at the advice of a family friend.
The El Paso County medical examiner's office said they hadn't received any information regarding the possibility of performing an autopsy.
This also sounded odd to me.
buffalobo
02-15-2016, 05:20
Not an endorsement. Just an observation about a possible, even likely, nominee. I haven't been able to find any real "red flags" on him yet...other than he worked for Gore.
What other flags needed? I would think the fact that Obamalamadingdong wants to appt him would be enough.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
GilpinGuy
02-15-2016, 07:29
I am willing to bet a 12 pack of shitty beer that Oblablahblah will get his nominee in before the election.
I can see the fucktard Rs in Congress and those running for POTUS being afraid of looking looking bad while "obstructing" His Highness's appointee and caving....again. And that's exactly how the media will portray it from this day forward: "Do nothing, obstructionist Republicans!!" For the next 9 months. Awesome.
The future of America be damned, as long as I get elected and get set for life! Both sides say this too. I have such little faith in the political system anymore.
Damn, I'm starting to sound like my grandfather.
Bailey Guns
02-15-2016, 07:42
OK...here's something to think about.
Obama resigns. Biden is sworn in. Biden nominates Obama to SCOTUS.
GilpinGuy
02-15-2016, 07:45
OK...here's something to think about.
Obama resigns. Biden is sworn in. Biden nominates Obama to SCOTUS.
[panic]
theGinsue
02-15-2016, 08:08
There's already talk that Obama might get a SCOTUS nomination from Hillary should she win the election.
This might have come up earlier, what is the rush to appoint another judge ASAP anyway? Does the Supreme Court have a busy schedule with a big backlog? I don't think so. I CAN imagine some of those cases being fasttracked all of a sudden to step up the appointment for obvious political reasons.
Another thing I found surprising, over 130 SC Justice's have died in office!
Whatever happens, this is going to get interesting/serious.
Rucker61
02-15-2016, 08:35
Here's another (highly unlikely) scenario: Obama nominates Trump. The Republican in the Senate have to decide to take the seat and lose the election, or lose the seat and possibly self-destruct.
Rucker61
02-15-2016, 08:39
This might have come up earlier, what is the rush to appoint another judge ASAP anyway? Does the Supreme Court have a busy schedule with a big backlog? I don't think so. I CAN imagine some of those cases being fasttracked all of a sudden to step up the appointment for obvious political reasons.
Another thing I found surprising, over 130 SC Justice's have died in office!
Whatever happens, this is going to get interesting/serious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/antonin-scalia-death-undecided-cases_us_56c072c5e4b08ffac1259d23?utm_hp_ref=polit ics
The concern is that with a tie, the ruling reverts to the lower court decision. That could be deadly if SCOTUS decides to review cases like Friedman vs Highland Park and the New York/Connecticut assault weapons bans.
I believe 9 of the 13 appellate courts lean left and 2 of them have a overturn rate, from SCOTUS, at right around 80%.
Is anyone seriously considering Obama for a Supreme Court nomination, or are you guys just engaging in some weird fear porn?
Just seems very unlikely to me.
Is anyone seriously considering Obama for a Supreme Court nomination, or are you guys just engaging in some weird fear porn?
Just seems very unlikely to me.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-appointing-president-obama-supreme-court/story?id=36534796
At a campaign event in Deocorah, Iowa on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/whitehouse/hillary-clinton.htm) lit up when a voter asked her if she would consider appointing the president to the Supreme Court (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/supreme-court.htm) should she win the White House.
"Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow," the Democratic presidential candidate (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/elections/democratic-presidential-candidates.htm) responded. "He may have a few other things to do but I tell you that's a great idea."
Okay, but besides a lying politician buttering up a voter?
I can never keep it straight from posters here whether the Obamas and Clintons hate each other or not.
Okay, but besides a lying politician buttering up a voter?
I can never keep it straight from posters here whether the Obamas and Clintons hate each other or not.
I have nothing else.
I can't tell if the obama/cliniton hate thing is a ploy or truth either, probably some of both.
Aloha_Shooter
02-15-2016, 12:03
This might have come up earlier, what is the rush to appoint another judge ASAP anyway? Does the Supreme Court have a busy schedule with a big backlog? I don't think so. I CAN imagine some of those cases being fasttracked all of a sudden to step up the appointment for obvious political reasons.
They actually do have a packed schedule every year and the common 5-4 split worries folks about a continually 4-4 divided SCOTUS. I would note however that a lot of Anthony Kennedy's liberal decisions seem to come from his delight in being the vote that makes the difference so I'd be looking for the places where his decision turns a 4-4 tie into a 5-3 decision. In addition, they are in a weird place right now where they've heard a lot of the cases they are going to decide on but are still working on writing the decisions. Conversely, there will be a lot of cases to review next year starting on the First Monday in October that any new Justice being nominated and reviewed in Feb/Mar 2017 will not have a chance to hear. Having said that, I think the real rush on Obama's part is two-fold: 1) the off-chance that he can pack the court to preserve the extra-constitutional crap he's done and 2) as a hammer against the GOP during election season.
I can never keep it straight from posters here whether the Obamas and Clintons hate each other or not.
Oh, they hate each other alright, there's plenty of evidence for that. However, they also recognized they had power bases in different wings of the party and more-or-less needed each other. Obama would have lost both elections if the Clinton wing had packed up and stayed home the way Lugar's faction did when a Tea Partier beat him in the primary.
hollohas
02-15-2016, 14:35
You'd be hard pressed to make this story up for a political novel.
- Justice declines Marshall Security service.
- Justice is described as energetic and entertaining by other guests prior to going to bed.
- Owner of ranch describes finding him with pillow over his head, un-wrinkled clothes, looking like he was taking a nap.
- The first two judges authorities called were out of town. The 3rd pronounced him dead via phone with no more information than LE on scene telling her there were no signs of struggle and the Justice's doctor telling her that he had been in for an appointment earlier in the week and worked the rest of the week.
- No medical examination was performed other than checking for pulse and feeling his body as cold.
- No autopsy will be preformed even though most unexpected, unattended deaths trigger an autopsy. Not even a toxicology report will be preformed.
- Obummer attempt to make a recess appointment during basically a long weekend had previously been struck down by the court because recess appointment can only be made during true recess as scheduled by the Congress.
- A scheduled congressional recess started the very day he died. Opening up a relatively long period of time for BO to legally make a recess appointment without challenge.
Seriously, this is a story right out of a conspiracy novel except none of what I mentioned above is fictional or conjecture, it's all been reported as fact by mainstream media.
If we don't see a recess appointment in the next two weeks, than all of this can go down as simple coincidence. But if we do see a recess appointment, which I don't personally think BO will possibly let this tragedy go to waste, I will forever be skeptical that we didn't actually see a political conspiracy plot line acted out in reality.
Zundfolge
02-15-2016, 14:41
If the Senate never goes into recess he can't do a recess appointment. The USSC already spanked him on that. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0
Mike
The Senate is currently in Recces until the 22nd (a week from today). He has this week to do a recess appointment if he wants to. Doesn't matter what's been done in the past, his new Marxist controlled USSC would uphold his actions (plus the state of recess was in dispute last time. It is not in dispute this time around).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html
He will NEVER appoint an originalist or strict constitutionalist as his life's work (if you'd go back and re-read "Dreams From My Father") is to complete his father's work of bringing down the evil Colonialist Capitalist White West.
If he appoints someone later this week they will make Kagen and Sotomeyor look like level headed originalists. And the American people (and GOP in DC) will lay down and do nothing. We are weak and cowardly and frankly too fat and happy to make a stand now, so the likelihood is that we will never.
The Republic dies with a whimper, not a bang.
hollohas
02-15-2016, 15:02
^Exactly.
I've posted my beliefs on undue influence over the Court in the past only to be told I am embarrassing the forum.
Once I accepted that Fast and Furious was designed to get innocent American and Mexican nationals murdered for the sole purpose of advancing gun control in the US, I realized there is nothing beneath this group of people. Yes, there are other examples too.
milwaukeeshaker
02-15-2016, 15:10
Yeah, some of these folks on this site are a bit further than a little left of center.
hollohas
02-15-2016, 15:14
I think all this hand-wringing is fruitless right now, we have to wait and see what happens.
.
Sounds a lot like what we were told prior to the bamacare vote.
hollohas
02-15-2016, 17:18
Anyone else see any inconsistencies in the ranch owner's account as reported by the LA Times?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scalia-ranch-20160214-story.html
Hmm, let's see...
“I had not seen him, and everyone else was up. I knocked loudly," Poindexter said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. But Scalia was in a large room, the "El Presidente" suite, and the owner figured that perhaps the justice couldn’t hear him.
Poindexter had just met Scalia, and although he found him “congenial” and they got on well at dinner the night before, his first thought was: “He’s a Supreme Court justice, and if he doesn’t want to be bothered.” ss
Most of the other guests had been to the ranch before and were friends or longtime acquaintances of Poindexter, who has a home on the ranch and has been hosting winter weekend gatherings for 20 years.
Poindexter said he had met Scalia once before, briefly in Washington, when he was there with a sports group and the justice agreed to meet them. He said he invited Scalia to the ranch on the suggestion of a mutual friend, a lawyer, who came with Scalia.
And
Poindexter had originally invited Scalia to bring his son, and when he couldn’t come at the last minute, the justice brought the attorney friend instead, who alerted the family to his death, Van Etten said.
Did the ranch owner, Poindexter, just meet the Justice, or did he meet him before, in DC? Did the owner's lawyer friend initiate the invitation or did the Justice invite the lawyer friend?
I wonder when we're going to hear from one of the other 35 anonymous long time friends of the democrat donor and owner or just from Poindexter himself.
Can anyone here tell me with a straight face that it's completely normal for there to be no medical examination or investigation into the death of a top political figure and national leader who died without witnesses in a remote location? With the only account coming from a single individual who was the party that initiated the deceased visit to said remote location?
This is very weird and the next couple weeks will tell all we need to know.
Sorry, but we have a two per person limit (nominations).
GilpinGuy
02-16-2016, 21:42
I am willing to bet a 12 pack of shitty beer that Oblablahblah will get his nominee in before the election.
I can see the fucktard Rs in Congress and those running for POTUS being afraid of looking looking bad while "obstructing" His Highness's appointee and caving....again. And that's exactly how the media will portray it from this day forward: "Do nothing, obstructionist Republicans!!" For the next 9 months. Awesome.
The future of America be damned, as long as I get elected and get set for life! Both sides say this too. I have such little faith in the political system anymore.
Damn, I'm starting to sound like my grandfather.
And it begins.....GOP showing signs of backing down from vow to block Obama SCOTUS pick (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/)
KestrelBike
02-16-2016, 21:59
And it begins.....GOP showing signs of backing down from vow to block Obama SCOTUS pick (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/)
http://www.amazon.com/Act-Treason-Mitch-Rapp-Novel/dp/1416542264/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1455681488&sr=8-12&keywords=vince+flynn
I'm in favor of accepting Obama's nomination, delaying the hearings and then Borking him or her. Could easily stretch this out without the perception of blatant obstructionalism.
I'm in favor of accepting Obama's nomination, delaying the hearings and then Borking him or her. Could easily stretch this out without the perception of blatant obstructionalism.
Exactly. There are many tools in the toolbox which do not have such negative PR consequences. However these require ensuring that Republicans are all on the same page and will not cross the aisle "to be nice" or something stupid like that.
Exactly. There are many tools in the toolbox which do not have such negative PR consequences. However these require ensuring that Republicans are all on the same page and will not cross the aisle "to be nice" or something stupid like that.
Reality is that they are all on the same page - the Liberal page. What have the Republicans done since we gave them the House in 2012 and the Senate in 2014? Not one damn thing that the Dems would oppose.
Who cares if we upset Obama and his supporters? Last I checked, they don't vote Republican anyway. Let them be pissed.
The problem is, the Republicans in office don't want to upset the Dems in office. They are all in it together.
While this is partially true, there's those pesky independents you're trying to swing.
When the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems didn't give a damn who got pissed and it didn't hurt their elections one bit.
Independents in name only - 95% of them consistently vote for the same side every election despite their lack of affiliation.
Reality:
The Dem politicians do the liberal dirty work while the Repub politicians fake being upset about it and make excuses as to why they can't stop it.
However, when we give the Repub politicians control, they continue to make excuses and do nothing to stop it.
It is about to happen again with this appointment.
All just a big show.
HoneyBadger
02-17-2016, 13:45
I'm in favor of accepting Obama's nomination, delaying the hearings and then Borking him or her. Could easily stretch this out without the perception of blatant obstructionalism.
Just look at how long Hillary's criminal trial email hearings are taking. Hell, we're still investigating Benghazi and that was more than 2 years ago. Seems par for the course. [Dunno]
HoneyBadger
02-17-2016, 13:49
When the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems didn't give a damn who got pissed and it didn't hurt their elections one bit.
Independents in name only - 95% of them consistently vote for the same side every election despite their lack of affiliation.
Reality:
The Dem politicians do the liberal dirty work while the Repub politicians fake being upset about it and make excuses as to why they can't stop it.
All just a big show.
And didn't we just hijack your whole Trump thread to explain that to you? And you think Trump is going to fix that? [LOL] You think Trump would nominate someone as constitutionally conservative as Scalia? [LOL]
[hahhah-no]
You "hijack" a "whole Trump" thread to talk about Libertarians.
Then come here to talk about Trump?
I thought this thread was about Scalia's death.
You really should consider starting your own threads. Seems like you need to vent. [gohome]
KestrelBike
02-17-2016, 18:54
You think Trump would nominate someone as constitutionally conservative as Scalia? [LOL]
Ah c'mon, he totally said that's exactly what he wants to do!!! What's not to believe?
HoneyBadger
02-17-2016, 20:55
[hahhah-no]
You "hijack" a "whole Trump" thread to talk about Libertarians.
Then come here to talk about Trump?
I thought this thread was about Scalia's death.
You really should consider starting your own threads. Seems like you need to vent. [gohome]
Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
Go ahead and call me a liar and threaten to sue me like Trump would. [Flower]
Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
Go ahead and call me a liar and threaten to sue me like Trump would. [Flower]
Nah, I'll just keep pushing the buttons of those who take this circus too seriously. It amuses me.[Beer]
GilpinGuy
02-17-2016, 23:05
And we continue to get divided further.....and we're on the same side.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/02/17/president-obama-will-not-attend-justice-scalias-funeral-n2120820?utm_content=buffer1e614&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Fundraiser or golf?
GilpinGuy
02-17-2016, 23:54
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/02/17/president-obama-will-not-attend-justice-scalias-funeral-n2120820?utm_content=buffer1e614&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Fundraiser or golf?
You don't go to the funeral of a man you had murdered. [Coffee]
HoneyBadger
02-18-2016, 09:15
The hypocrisy knows no bounds!
http://i.imgur.com/jLIvup5.jpg
hollohas
02-18-2016, 09:18
The hypocrisy knows no bounds!
http://i.imgur.com/jLIvup5.jpg
The White House spokesdummy said that was then, this is now. Said the POTUS regrets doing that eventhough the Dem filibuster was based on "substance" unlike it would be in Repubs Filibuster.
Unbelievable...
The hypocrisy knows no bounds!
http://i.imgur.com/jLIvup5.jpg
I'm going to go post this on FB right now.
KestrelBike
02-19-2016, 17:17
The line was double-snaked around the block to see him in repose at the supreme court this afternoon, and a capitol policeman on duty said that it was about 3hrs for the wait (which got pushed back even further due to potus signaling he was gonna swing by in between tee-times)
I had stopped by to pay my respects, but didn't have the 3+hrs to wait. Was refreshing to see so many people who were willing to wait, though.
Aloha_Shooter
02-19-2016, 20:38
I think in the reach of time, Reagan's nomination of Scalia will contend with the downfall of the Soviet Union for Reagan's greatest legacy. Thing is, he probably has to share credit for bringing down the Soviet Union with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II but nominating Scalia was all Reagan ...
http://www.weaselzippers.us/258026-obama-couldnt-go-to-scalias-funeral-yesterday-but-had-time-today-to-golf-today/
I have no words for how I feel about this man.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-21-at-6.14.30-PM-550x268.png
I thought he was ‘so busy’ reviewing Supreme Court nominees he couldn’t even spare an hour for the funeral. See photo op:
http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-21-at-6.22.26-PM.png
He got rained on playing golf. I’d like to think that that was God telling him ‘Screw you’ for being an ass.
Aloha_Shooter
02-21-2016, 21:12
The family was better off without that scum sucker being present as long as they kept Uncle Joe away from the wimmen folk.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/258026-obama-couldnt-go-to-scalias-funeral-yesterday-but-had-time-today-to-golf-today/
I have no words for how I feel about this man.
You know, I try to not say things that make me sound like an a-hole, but stuff like this really tries my patience. This guy....
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i0BXI7k_PB8/VsmGxqflRNI/AAAAAAAA698/Mpt5urY6P3I/s640/CbnJUhBVAAA8fCL.jpg
sellersm
02-23-2016, 12:39
<click image to see bigger view>
64145
Honey Badger282.8
02-24-2016, 19:55
Rumors are that Obama is considering a moderate Republican for his nomination. Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval is being name dropped. If this proves to be true I think the Senate had better take a long hard look in the mirror about their blustering as there is no guarantee that they retain the Senate or take the White House.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VX1LL
sellersm
02-24-2016, 19:59
Sandoval is being discussed in this thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/154634-Brian-Sandoval-for-SCOTUS
Honey Badger282.8
02-24-2016, 20:25
Ahh, thanks.
Bump, Obama announcing his nomination today.
Bump, Obama announcing his nomination today.
Yup, we'll see if the GOP caves or if they stand tall like they said they would.
I bet they cave.
Put me down for $100 on cave.
The Republican party is as organized as the '100 yards for people with no sense of direction' in the Monty Phython Silly Olympiad
http://youtu.be/UI8CWptOEm8
Their own self-interests make them unable to support a viable candidate for President...but they'll make a stand against the SCOTUS appointment. Riiiiight.
Zundfolge
03-16-2016, 08:58
Yup, we'll see if the GOP caves or if they stand tall like they said they would.
I bet they cave.
They'll cave and the argument will be "well this candidate he's put forward is better than anyone Hillary will pick" (because at this point I think the GOPe has planned on throwing the election too).
kidicarus13
03-16-2016, 09:21
Merrick Garland....
JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
hurley842002
03-16-2016, 09:27
Merrick Garland....
JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Well, now probably more than ever, we need the R's to make the right choice (for THE PEOPLE), I won't hold my breath tho.
Merrick Garland....
JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Another effing commie, thanks to all the obama asshole babies on this board.
Rucker61
03-16-2016, 09:40
NPR mentioned that a back-alley message had been sent by the Senate Republicans to Obama saying that if a Democrat wins the Presidency the Senate will confirm Garland in the lame duck period to prevent a more radical choice from the incoming Democratic president.
Regarding Heller, the concept of stare decisis still exists. SCOTUS doesn't just overturn previous decisions.
Regarding Heller, the concept of stare decisis still exists. SCOTUS didn't used to just overturn previous decisions.
FIFY.
O2
This Constitutional Republic is dead, seeing as the Constitution was used as toilet paper and flushed. SCOTUS is now entirely political with rulings of "Constitutionality" being made up from whole cloth and are nowhere to be found in the document. SCOTUS is a club wielded to break down state sovereignty and enforce compliance with the Feds.
NPR mentioned that a back-alley message had been sent by the Senate Republicans to Obama saying that if a Democrat wins the Presidency the Senate will confirm Garland in the lame duck period to prevent a more radical choice from the incoming Democratic president.
Regarding Heller, the concept of stare decisis still exists. SCOTUS doesn't just overturn previous decisions.
Serious question here...
Miller (1939) is a previous decision that sets the bar at "common use" after NFA (1934). It should be fully legal to own assault weapons, magazines, and anything else in common use by MIL and/or LE. Today, we derive no benefit from this whatsoever (AFAIK) and see an effort to eliminate the private ownership of anything that remotely looks MIL or LE (many would like gun ownership reduced to bolt action rifles for hunting).
Could Heller go the same way?
Rucker61
03-16-2016, 12:00
Serious question here...
Miller (1939) is a previous decision that sets the bar at "common use" after NFA (1934). It should be fully legal to own assault weapons, magazines, and anything else in common use by MIL and/or LE. Today, we derive no benefit from this whatsoever (AFAIK) and see an effort to eliminate the private ownership of anything that remotely looks MIL or LE (many would like gun ownership reduced to bolt action rifles for hunting).
Could Heller go the same way?
IANAL, but based on the 2nd Circuit Court's ruling on the Connecticut and New York assault weapons/ magazine bans, the courts don't care anyway. The majority opinion in the ban acknowledged that both "military style" semiautomatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines were protected by Heller and Miller, but could still be considered "dangerous and unusual" and thus eligible for further restrictions. With that mindset all bets are off.
Serious question here...
Miller (1939) is a previous decision that sets the bar at "common use" after NFA (1934). It should be fully legal to own assault weapons, magazines, and anything else in common use by MIL and/or LE. Today, we derive no benefit from this whatsoever (AFAIK) and see an effort to eliminate the private ownership of anything that remotely looks MIL or LE (many would like gun ownership reduced to bolt action rifles for hunting).
Could Heller go the same way?
Absolutely. Read the opinion. It specifically mentions the impact on Miller (none), and there is enough in Heller that could be used to neuter it away to nothingness.
Potentially good news:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/273217-mcconnell-grassley-voted-against-garland-in-1997
Prominent Republican senators voted against judge Merrick Garland in a 1997 confirmation — a fact that casts further doubt over whether the GOP will allow President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing.
The Senate confirmed Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 by a vote of 76-23. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and current Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) both voted against him.
IANAL, but based on the 2nd Circuit Court's ruling on the Connecticut and New York assault weapons/ magazine bans, the courts don't care anyway. The majority opinion in the ban acknowledged that both "military style" semiautomatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines were protected by Heller and Miller, but could still be considered "dangerous and unusual" and thus eligible for further restrictions. With that mindset all bets are off.
Yup.
All firearms are dangerous and unusual is subjective; common use = usual (hence Miller). In a Liberal household a firearm would indeed be unusual (unless their amoral psychopathic child on SSRIs had one, of course). We've already heard that it is unusual for people in a developed nation to have guns given the successes in Europe and Australia.
Absolutely. Read the opinion. It specifically mentions the impact on Miller (none), and there is enough in Heller that could be used to neuter it away to nothingness.
That's why I asked. We've had lengthy debates here on legal action in opposition to the mag ban and the consensus is that Miller isn't enough to overturn it. Even asking the Supreme Court to consider it is risky--Scalia said the right that SHALL NOT INFRINGED is not unlimited.
It's the precedent that never was.
---
It's turning into might makes right. And I think the political process is broken (IRS, voter fraud, Chicago 3/10).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.