Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas May Retire

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    Bullfrog

    Bullfrog

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 8, 2009
    15,323
    Carroll County
    krucam said:
    Makes no sense to me...why would Thomas wait till election year instead of last year. The Garland shit Storm is in every ones mind.
    Click to expand...

    Because they are concerned Trump may lose the election, when last year it seemed likely he would be reelected?

    2016 was a different situation. Obama was a lame duck, it was a certain thing that he was on his last year as president. Secondly, the senate was controlled by the opposite party. Cry as they may, the senate had the right not to confirm his nomination. The words used are "advice and consent of the Senate", I beieve.
     
    Mike OTDP

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,324
    I'll believe it when I see it. Thomas is a possibility...Alito much less so.
     
    CrueChief

    CrueChief

    Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
    Apr 3, 2009
    3,036
    Napolis-ish
    21 of the last 28 SCOTUS justices have been appointed by GOP. And we still get the rulings we get, the left has gotten ALL of their stuff through the court, so who cares.
     
    Bullfrog

    Bullfrog

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 8, 2009
    15,323
    Carroll County
    CrueChief said:
    21 of the last 28 SCOTUS justices have been appointed by GOP. And we still get the rulings we get, the left has gotten ALL of their stuff through the court, so who cares.
    Click to expand...


    And what rulings would we have had if Scalia, Thomas and Alito not been on the court, but three other justices appointed by progressives?

    How would the rulings on Heller and McDonald gone? Hint: they most likely would never have been heard at all.

    We would be facing the same kind of bans that NZ and Canada recently put in place.
     
    Matlack

    Matlack

    Scribe
    Dec 15, 2008
    8,557
    Bullfrog said:
    Because they are concerned Trump may lose the election, when last year it seemed likely he would be reelected?

    2016 was a different situation. Obama was a lame duck, it was a certain thing that he was on his last year as president. Secondly, the senate was controlled by the opposite party. Cry as they may, the senate had the right not to confirm his nomination. The words used are "advice and consent of the Senate", I beieve.
    Click to expand...

    Precedent also said not to confirm during lame duck. I think 8 seats were vacated in a lame duck session and only one, during the 1880s when democrats again were intentionally manipulating the SCOTUS, waited until the new president.
     
    Matlack

    Matlack

    Scribe
    Dec 15, 2008
    8,557
    CrueChief said:
    21 of the last 28 SCOTUS justices have been appointed by GOP. And we still get the rulings we get, the left has gotten ALL of their stuff through the court, so who cares.
    Click to expand...

    Incorrect:

    Trump (R) 2
    Obama (D) 2
    Bush (R) 2
    Clinton (D) 2
    Bush (R) 2
    Reagan (R) 3
    Carter (D) 0
    Ford (R) 1
    Nixon (R) 4
    Johnson (D) 2
    Kennedy (D) 2
    Eisenhower (R) 5
    Truman (D) 4
    Roosevelt (D) 8

    R = 19
    D = 20

    Even if you do recess appointments, which are temporary, it still doesnt match your numbers. Only a few recess appointments havent been confirmed by the Senate. It is why you see some presidents have more appointments, but you dont count them twice and you dont count an Associate Justice being confirmed as Chief Justice, it's still only a single vacancy. I dont know where your number came from. Maybe you included people like Bork who was withdrawn because he couldnt get confirmed or you included an Associate to Chief?

    Up until 2017 you had to get them passed the Senate with a 2/3 majority which required support of both parties. Hence why R presidents appointed D justices. But since the Dem's wouldnt even consider a Trump nomination, it was changed. I still dont agree with them doing that even though the D's did it with other judicial appointments. They wanted to push Garland through, even though he should not have been appointed. If anything a recess appointment would have been acceptable. But Obama wouldnt do it that way for political theatre to try and sway the election, which he ultimately did to Trump.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    MD Elite Firearms Sales

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,421
    Messages
    7,280,926
    Members
    33,451
    Latest member
    SparkyKoT

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom