^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.