Justice Scalia dead

Sandoval is being discussed in this thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/154634-...val-for-SCOTUS

Ahh, thanks.

Bump, Obama announcing his nomination today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_L

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

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).

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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

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/2...arland-in-1997

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

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).