• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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?
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

DanS

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
5
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
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 
Top