^THIS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeinhb
Printable View
^THIS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeinhb
It would have zero legitimacy which doesn't necessarily make it less likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
It was a pretty good ride, America. God knows, I won't live to see another one.
Justice Scalia dead
https://www.ar-15.co/showthread.php?t=154404
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggity
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.
The current record for length of time a Senate has held up a nomination is 125 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
This ruined my day. Poor timing. I know I'll miss his good sense.
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.
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.
RIP and thanks for serving your Country
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.
You should probably Google that if you don't know. There are quite a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
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
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz406pa2DzLQuote:
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.
So we had a chance to get our school vouchers back too.
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.
Not to be disrespectful to Scalia, but rigor mortis has barely set in, and Obama is talking about appointing someone. SUPER CLASSY!Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Riiiiiiiight:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...1878a281b2.jpg
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...1878a281b2.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
Lol, I've got a Marlin 30-30 and a tough as nails 85 year old I'll donate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
RIP justice Scalia. You will be missed greatly.
Mother in law? [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
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]
Lol nah we aren't that old, my grandma. Besides, I said tough as nails, not crazy as f$@k!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
[LOL]
Would a recess appointment help obama expedite some things through the court?Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
Found where Eisenhower did some recess appointments that were later confirmed by the Senate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight...urt_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.
^^ 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...urt-an-option/
^^ Thank you