Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 127

Thread: Scalia Dead - Supreme Court No longer has a Gun Friendly Majority

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,929

    Scalia Dead - Supreme Court No longer has a Gun Friendly Majority

    Fox News just reported Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member Wolfgang1952's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
    Posts
    169
    Obongo get to nominate another left wing Supreme Court judge. We are really up a creek without a patal now

    Wolf
    Pres. Florida Parishes Chapter of LOCAL www.laopencarry.org

    .308 Isn't an area code, but it can still make long distance calls.
    How may I help you? Press '1' for English. Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English.


    Wolf

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,528
    I guess we don't get to rest in peace.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang1952 View Post
    Obongo get to nominate another left wing Supreme Court judge. We are really up a creek without a patal now

    Wolf
    We are only up a creek if Senate Majority Leader McConnell allows the nomination out of committee. No vote to confirm a Supreme Court nomination can happen unless Republicans let it happen.
    Last edited by Thundar; 02-13-2016 at 04:56 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,727
    As much as you guys hate voting for the lesser evil, we are up a creek if Hillary is elected. Hopefully the Senate can hold up any appointment until after inauguration if Cruz, or Trump win.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  6. #6
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We are only up a creek if Senate Majority Leader Paul Ryan allows the nomination out of committee. No vote to confirm a Supreme Court nomination can happen unless Republicans let it happen.
    You mean Mitch 'The Weasel' McConnell

  7. #7
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    537
    Gun owners are so screwed.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We are only up a creek if Senate Majority Leader Paul Ryan allows the nomination out of committee. No vote to confirm a Supreme Court nomination can happen unless Republicans let it happen.
    We will find out what Paul Ryan is made of....

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We are only up a creek if Senate Majority Leader Paul Ryan allows the nomination out of committee. No vote to confirm a Supreme Court nomination can happen unless Republicans let it happen.
    Which means we are definitely up a creek.

    And while some will take some joy in pointing at the RINO establishment Republicans were every bit as responsible for screwing us as was Obummer, won't make the screwing any less damaging.

    And it isn't just guns. With apologies for the non-RKBA related topic, the issue of EPA rule making creating brand new law and killing our ability to generate electricity is this nation is a most serious matter for not only our quality of life, but for rule of law and size of the federal government.

    Looked at another way, what is the longest we've ever had a vacancy on the court? It is at all reasonable to think the GOP could credibly keep Obama from appointing a new justice for the next 11 months until he is out of office?

    A democrat president and a GOP senate: we might hope for them forcing him to nominate a moderate. But I don't expect the GOP to go even that far. Sadly, my own senior Senator, "borrin" Orrin Hatch is so deferential to presidential appointees it is like he only sees "..consent" under his duties while utterly failing to notice the whole "advise and..." that precedes it.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 02-13-2016 at 04:41 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Vulgar intercourse!
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    You mean Mitch 'The Weasel' McConnell
    Yes that is what I mean
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    You mean Mitch 'The Weasel' McConnell
    Unfortunately you are correct..

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We are only up a creek if Senate Majority Leader McConnell allows the nomination out of committee. No vote to confirm a Supreme Court nomination can happen unless Republicans let it happen.
    Exactly. The question is will the Senate allow it?

    Historically, they've had little reason not to allow it.

    In light of so many people in Congress calling for Obozo's impeachment, I don't think that they would allow it.

    Sorry to hear of his passing. Not exactly the most opportune time.

    Do you think Obozo will attempt to appoint himself, taking up residence on January 21, 2017?
    I no longer have any confidence in the moderation or administration of this forum. Nonetheless, the First STILL protects the Second, and the Second protects the First! Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and other founding documents. If you're going to do anything at all, do it right!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    740
    I doubt that a replacement justice will be nominated/confirmed until AFTER the elections. If a republican will be our next president, then Obama has every incentive to get whomever confirmed that he can, i.e. a moderate...otherwise he takes the risk that a new republican administration (and likely congress) will be appointing a solid conservative.

    If on the other hand, the next president happens to be a democrat or a socialist ... the Second Amendment will be in SERIOUS trouble.
    Last edited by OC4me; 02-13-2016 at 06:41 PM.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    Pete Williams: I'd Be "Very Surprised" If Senate Even Considers Supreme Court Nominat
    Hmmmm. I wonder what that would mean for all the new cases between now and then.

    I seem to recall that SCOTUS holds conferences to decide which cases to accept. Does waiting until after the election to confirm a replacement mean that if a conference vote is 4-4 on accepting a particular case in the meantime, that appellant does not get review?
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-13-2016 at 08:22 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hmmmm. I wonder what that would mean for all the new cases between now and then.

    I seem to recall that SCOTUS holds conferences to decide which cases to accept. Does waiting until after the election to confirm a replacement mean that if a conference vote is 4-4 on accepting a particular case in the meantime, that appellant does not get review?
    Actually, the court typically hears a case if 4 of 9 justices vote to hear it. It would stand to reason that 4 of 8 would also be sufficient.

    Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    You mean Mitch 'The Weasel' McConnell
    At least a weasel has a spine and some have a pair....... it is more like Mitch
    "The Jellyfish" McConnel.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    537
    Does anyone realize that the Senate is currently in recess? The head twit can actually appoint whomever he wants anytime between now and the 22nd without Senate approval.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,760
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    Does anyone realize that the Senate is currently in recess? The head twit can actually appoint whomever he wants anytime between now and the 22nd without Senate approval.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is...urt-an-option/

    In short, yes he can try. But that doesn't mean it would be successful. Also even if it were somehow successful it would only go until 3 January 2017, at which time a new person would have to be nominated. Now I wouldn't want to think what damage could be done in just 11 months, it is at least some solace that it wouldn't be an overly long appointment. At which point the new President would ultimately decide things.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The law professors at The Volokh Conspiracy have learned commentary on Justice Scalia's untimely passing and the controversy of recess appointments of SCOTUS, mentioning particularly Abe Fortas, also that the democrats wanted to restrict POTUS's ability to change the make up of the court during an election year.

    But then, of course, they have been disparaged as "pencil necks" here by their no-neck betters. As we Slouch Towards Gomorrah.
    Disparaged, or accurately described. Their words are available for all to read. Your defense of them is admirable. If they be offended by being characterized as pencil-necks, by me, they may come here and defend their words...or not.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    847
    The longest it's taken to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in US history is 125 days. President Obama has 361 days left in office.

    "The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

    "The Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct."

    Mitch McConnell on the floor of the United States Senate, 2005.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,371
    1) What the media are pleased to refer to as "obstruction" by the Republicans in the Senate is, according to them, an attempt to derail "the process" - what they don't seem to get is that action (or inaction) by the Senate is an essential part of "the process". The Senate has no Constitutional responsibility to rubber-stamp the President's choice. They can wait until O'bamma puts up a conservative Republican candidate, and refuse to accept anyone they don't think acceptable.

    2) I note that the Vatican still maintains a majority in the Supreme Court with five of the eight remaining. Not known for adherence to "traditional American values" which are largely the result of Germanic and Scottish cultural influences mainly expressed through various non-Catholic sects, "The Church" is probably the strongest proponent of disarming the peasantry in the U.S.. They learned their lesson when the German nobles armed their peasants during the Reformation (which is why Austria is Catholic and Germany is Lutheran). I suggest that, without knocking anyone's religion, another Roman on the Supreme Court would not be an advantage to people interested in preserving their right to defend themselves, their homes and their families. For a concrete example of how this cultural difference plays out in practical politics, compare Rubio with Cruz on the status of illegal (mainly Catholic) hispanic immigrants, and consider that difference in light of the religious upbringing of each man. The fact that Rubio has a lot in common with conservatives doesn't mean he is a conservative.

    3) Scalia was a great judge because he believed in implementing the law as it is, and had an intellectually honest approach to life in a civil society; he did not subordinate his approach to decisions to any "higher authority" than the law. Which used to make my Catholic dentist pretty unhappy - he'd have to harangue me about it everytime I had to sit still and listen to him (in between the grinding noises). Scalia was never argumentative about what the law ought to be (a big failing on the part of some of the members), and strongly believed in the Constitutional balance. Thank you, Ronald Reagan. I hope the next president will make as wise a decision.
    Last edited by user; 02-14-2016 at 08:54 AM.
    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  23. #23
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    Does anyone realize that the Senate is currently in recess? The head twit can actually appoint whomever he wants anytime between now and the 22nd without Senate approval.
    They can/should hot foot it back to DC and call the senate into pro forma session and stay in session until the end of the session.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Democrats said that with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure, the Senate has enough time — and indeed an obligation — to confirm a replacement.

    Mr. McConnell, though, said voters must be given a say in the matter, and that means picking a president who will nominate the replacement.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-heats-democr/
    If I were to separate out my personal feelings on the matter, I'd be siding with the Democrats on this one. 11 months is sufficient time, and the truth is that we currently have a President (again, regardless of my feelings about him) who was elected knowing he would nominate replacements during his term.

    That said, Republicans are the ones who failed in the previous nomination processes. There were clear reasons to not confirm Kagan and Sotomayor, but they did their backroom deals and did it anyway.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    SNIP 2) I note that the Vatican still maintains a majority in the Supreme Court with five of the eight remaining. Not known for adherence to "traditional American values" which are largely the result of Germanic and Scottish cultural influences mainly expressed through various non-Catholic sects, "The Church" is probably the strongest proponent of disarming the peasantry in the U.S.. They learned their lesson when the German nobles armed their peasants during the Reformation (which is why Austria is Catholic and Germany is Lutheran). I suggest that, without knocking anyone's religion, another Roman on the Supreme Court would not be an advantage to people interested in preserving their right to defend themselves, their homes and their families. For a concrete example of how this cultural difference plays out in practical politics, compare Rubio with Cruz on the status of illegal (mainly Catholic) hispanic immigrants, and consider that difference in light of the religious upbringing of each man. The fact that Rubio has a lot in common with conservatives doesn't mean he is a conservative.
    Very interesting, thank you.

    Just to expand a bit by touching on another angle:

    In his Pulitzer-prize winning book, Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination, history professor Leonard Levy points out that one of the reasons England ended up on a different course to the continent is because England's legal system included lawyers using the common law. Thus, the common law lawyers were in a position to fight back against Catholic Church in England. Where did that common law tradition come from? Those pesky Germanic immigrants who came along after the Romans gave up Britain, and those dang Picts (Latin for painted people) who lived in the northern part of the island (Scotland).
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •