The Balance of the SCOTUS

john_bud · Jun 7, 2011

press1280 said:
Although the court is not supposed to be political or feel any kind of pressure, they're people who definitely do not want to be villified by the people .

That may be the case for normal people with normal morals. Progressive liberal socialist elitists don't give a flying flatulence what the peons think anymore than cats care what mice think.

jpk1md · Jun 7, 2011

gprimr1 said:
And Democrat doesn't always mean anti-gun,.

Practically speaking....********.

Do you really think Obama or ANY other Dem POTUS is going to nominate a candidate to SCOTUS that is not openly hostile to 2A? Lets be real.

I've said it a thousand times....out current strategy of putting all eggs in one basket (SCOTUS) is going to end badly.

1. You can't count on a political appointee from ONE branch of the Federal Gov to reign in the Political Appointee from ANOTHER branch of the Fed Gov/

2. We're never MORE than 1 Political Appointee (SCOTUS) away from complete ruin on <pick your issue>

Our problems will not be solved via a Federal Solution.....the ONLY out is to continue to turn the states Red and FORCE the Fed Gov to stay within its Constitutional Bounds.

boricuamaximus · Jun 7, 2011

krucam said:
Then I'd suggest we find someone to replace Obama before that happens....if one of the Heller 5 were to drop dead in the next 18 months, do you really believe a Conservative would be nominated?

The question was a hypothetical "what if" one of the Heller 5 were replaced by a liberal-leaning Justice. I spoke to it being more likely a liberal-leaning replacement of a liberal-leaning.

That IS the most likely scenario through 2012.

That's umpossible. Obama will serve at least 5 terms before we have the laws reviewed. Only reason he'll serve 2 terms is because people are racist baby haters that dont want free healthcare for the childrenses.

MDFF2008 · Jun 7, 2011

JPK1MD, please don't take what I said out of context go with it.

Yellowfin said Conservative does not always mean pro-2a.

I responded: "And Democrat doesn't always mean anti-gun, although I think you'll find far fewer in that class." Indicating that while it is true Democrat does not always mean anti-gun, it is not common to find that.

You quoted: "And Democrat doesn't always mean anti-gun,." which makes it look like I'm trolling for Democrats.

Not mad or anything, it's just you omitted a pretty important part of what I said.

jpk1md · Jun 7, 2011

gprimr1 said:
JPK1MD, please don't take what I said out of context go with it.

Yellowfin said Conservative does not always mean pro-2a.

I responded: "And Democrat doesn't always mean anti-gun, although I think you'll find far fewer in that class." Indicating that while it is true Democrat does not always mean anti-gun, it is not common to find that.

You quoted: "And Democrat doesn't always mean anti-gun,." which makes it look like I'm trolling for Democrats.

Not mad or anything, it's just you omitted a pretty important part of what I said.

Mark, I agree 100% that there are Anti 2A Republicans but please name the last Pro (or at least nuetral) 2A Democrat POTUS.....hasn't happened in your lifetime has it.

Lets take it a step further....when did we see the last Pro 2A Dem CANDIDATE for POTUS....again....not in your lifetime.

Sorry but the Dem Party doesn't tolerate Pro 2A in its ranks.....not gonna happen.....pigs will fly before this happens

MDFF2008 · Jun 8, 2011

I"m not arguing that, I'm just saying it is possible. Didn't say probable.

One thing I learned from doing the public outreach is that profiling people based on anything and correlation it with gun rights is a recipe for trouble.

Cases in Point:

Pink haired lesbian looking super hippie: She was really interested in being able to carry a gun for protection.

Big Burly Republican looking man supporting the illegal immigrant petition: I love guns, I got like 20 guns, but man f' the NRA and there support for cop killer (tefflon) bullets.

jpk1md · Jun 8, 2011

gprimr1 said:
I"m not arguing that, I'm just saying it is possible. Didn't say probable.

One thing I learned from doing the public outreach is that profiling people based on anything and correlation it with gun rights is a recipe for trouble.

Cases in Point:

Pink haired lesbian looking super hippie: She was really interested in being able to carry a gun for protection.

Big Burly Republican looking man supporting the illegal immigrant petition: I love guns, I got like 20 guns, but man f' the NRA and there support for cop killer (tefflon) bullets.

Possible at the Private Citizen level sure......but at the high level politician?....nope, not gonna happen...it goes against everything that the current Liberal Dem Party Platform stands for.

And I'll launch the pre-emptive strike on anyone that attempts to bring Harry Reid up as a counter example.

1, Reid isn't really pro gun.....all he's done is block really bad legislation from hitting the floor of the senate a couple times

2. Reid is a product of your grandfathers "Democrat" Party...the party has left him behind and is now one of the radical left Pelosi/Obama agenda

yellowfin · Jun 8, 2011

As for #1, that might be all his party allows. He has to walk a fine line and he's apparently been pretty good about it. One thing you and I DO NOT WANT is his replacement being Chuck Schumer, which was floated around in the last election if Reid lost. It's a really, REALLY frightening thing to think of but he and Feinslime hold a LOT of power because they've had (fixed?) a lock on their reelection more securely than almost anyone. Evil seems to have a way of surviving because it knows it must; our side doesn't share their enthusiasm for winning.

press1280 · Jun 9, 2011

john_bud said:
That may be the case for normal people with normal morals. Progressive liberal socialist elitists don't give a flying flatulence what the peons think anymore than cats care what mice think.

They're also not stupid. They know overreaching will set them back. That's why the country didn't just turn into a nanny state overnight. Small changes over time brought us to where we are now.

Boxcab · Jun 9, 2011

The question is not if Obama would put an "Anti" into an open slot, or even if a slot will open up. If we assume we lose "one of the five", how much backing up can they do? The horse is out of the barn. The 2nd is an individual Right.

The SCOTUS does not create their own cases (within limits), so what current lower court case could be used to limit the individual Right? What would be the blue print for doing so? How could that effort be defeated? Could we actually extend the Right, even with a re-balancing of the justices?

jpk1md · Jun 9, 2011

The fatal flaw is that so many people are turning to the Federal Gov to decide what their rights really are when the Fed Gov was never EVER granted the Power or Authority to be the arbiter of all things Constitutional.....sorry, but that power just wasn't written into the Constitution.

And Yes, what SCOTUS has granted, SCOTUS can take away.....there are sufficient examples of SCOTUS overturning the decisions of prior courts.

Oreo · Jun 9, 2011

There may not be any anti-gun cases currently but there might be one 10-15yrs from now & its a good bet any justices appointed by BO will be a part of those future decisions. Getting BO out of office is the most pressing concern but having good presidents will remain important well after the 2012 term as well. Its a cumulative effect.

BenL · Jun 9, 2011

BondJamesBond said:
Thought I read that CJ Roberts has a history of epilepsy also.

And I believe that retardation runs in Sotomayor's family, as well. (At least based on her.)

jrosenberger · Jun 9, 2011

I saw this speech from Scalia linked recently and I think it has some bearing on the subject. I quoted the most relevant section below, but the whole thing is worth reading. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

And finally, this is what I will conclude with although it is not on a happy note. The worst thing about the Living Constitution is that it will destroy the Constitution. You heard in the introduction that I was confirmed, close to 19 years ago now, by a vote of 98 to nothing. The two missing were Barry Goldwater and Jake Garnes, so make it 100. I was known at that time to be, in my political and social views, fairly conservative. But still, I was known to be a good lawyer, an honest man — somebody who could read a text and give it its fair meaning — had judicial impartiality and so forth. And so I was unanimously confirmed. Today, barely 20 years later, it is difficult to get someone confirmed to the Court of Appeals. What has happened? The American people have figured out what is going on. If we are selecting lawyers, if we are selecting people to read a text and give it the fair meaning it had when it was adopted, yes, the most important thing to do is to get a good lawyer. If on the other hand, we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a new constitution with all sorts of new values to govern our society, then we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look principally for people who agree with us, the majority, as to whether there ought to be this right, that right and the other right. We want to pick people that would write the new constitution that we would want.

Boxcab · Jun 10, 2011

jrosenberger said:
I saw this speech from Scalia linked recently and I think it has some bearing on the subject. I quoted the most relevant section below, but the whole thing is worth reading. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

Nice read, thank you.

trickg · Jun 10, 2011

jrosenberger said:
I saw this speech from Scalia linked recently and I think it has some bearing on the subject. I quoted the most relevant section below, but the whole thing is worth reading. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

Agreed - nice link.

IMO Justice Scalia is probably the best justice to hit the SCOTUS bench in modern times. It's going to be a sad day when he retires. History will bear him out as being one of the best SCOTUS justices ever.

The Balance of the SCOTUS

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Pro 2A Gastronome

Ultimate Member

MSI EM

Ultimate Member

Banned

John Galt Speaking.

Active Member

MSI EM

Guns 'n Drums

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics