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...ents.html?_r=0Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Mike
Printable View
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...ents.html?_r=0Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Mike
^^^ Ditto, all is not lost (yet).Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Disturbing news. Last of constitutionalists. RIP Justice Scalia.
More turbulence ahead for our country and our liberty.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
And what are the odds he would die on the very day a scheduled recess starts, a time BO has historically attempted to abuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
If BO doesn't make a recess appointment, I'll take that back. But if he does, I'll remain skeptical.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
No, having a gun is enough. [Sarcasm2]Quote:
Originally Posted by KestrelBike
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Edit: Would I say the same if it were Ruth or Sotomayor? No, nothing quite like what I've read.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski
Liberals aren't just the enemies of freedom politically, they truly are our enemies in the truest definition of the word.
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 goes on both sides of the aisle. We see it here every single day. I don't want to belabor that point though.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
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.
^^ Like Hillary Clinton?
As far as your first paragraph- a "Law" such as you suggest would clearly and plainly NOT be constitutional and therefore wholly invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
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 think she lost her morals more and more with each additional dollar made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I lean towards this train of thought, also. More quiet gun ownwers than loud liberals, and it's a huge money maker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjmpr
But it did indeed get much more real.
How much longer do you want us to wait ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/who-w...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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
Of course the list is full of prime examples of the most foul examples of leftist jurisprudence, something the communists excel at.
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 (I know, I know...):
Quote:
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 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.”
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
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
Quote:
"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.
That sounded really odd to me.
Quote:
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.
What other flags needed? I would think the fact that Obamalamadingdong wants to appt him would be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
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.
OK...here's something to think about.
Obama resigns. Biden is sworn in. Biden nominates Obama to SCOTUS.
[panic]Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
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.
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...p_ref=politicsQuote:
Originally Posted by flogger
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.