A scary thought...

MDFF2008 · Apr 21, 2015

78
80
80
83

What are those numbers?

The ages of 4 Supreme Court justices. 2 Liberals, 1 Conservative and 1 Swing.

Hillary Clinton is going to be the unopposed Democratic nominee unless something major happens.

Hillary Clinton could have the oppertunity to close the doors of the SCOTUS to gun rights for a very, very long time.

eruby · Apr 21, 2015

I heard on the radio she might well nominate Hussein for SCOTUS.

My head nearly exploded.

DC-W · Apr 21, 2015

All the more reason to prevent her from getting there.

fightinbluhen51 · Apr 21, 2015

squirrels said:
You guys just love to energize Hillary's campaign by throwing her name around in a fear-mongering way. The way people panic about it, it makes it sound even MORE like it's virtually foregone.

This race really isn't about Hillary. NO ONE wants her to be President except the FAR LEFT. After all, she lost to that no-name senator out of Illinois last time she ran. No one is excited about her. She is a default choice right now.

What the race is about is whether the Republicans can muster up a candidate or two that the "common man" will consider to be worth voting for.

Meaning that won't sell out to the Chamber of Commerce, the country club blue bloods, the Microsofts, the GEs, the Koch Brothers, the big banks, big farm, big pharma, ect....

Just like the Dems.

We have massive structural issues. Jeb/Chrispycream/Kasich/Rubio ain't the answer. None of them should be seen as center right candidates either.

Bush I gave us appellate court justices that we throw our hands up and pull our hair out.

Bush II gave us more of the same; plus John Roberts (ACA sellout anyone?). Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see just how our "friends" treat us.

danb · Apr 21, 2015

Yes, the next president will make more than one appointment. I'd expect the liberal to retire soon to Obama gets a chance to appoint someone, rather than take the risk in 2017.

esqappellate · Apr 21, 2015

danb said:
Yes, the next president will make more than one appointment. I'd expect the liberal to retire soon to Obama gets a chance to appoint someone, rather than take the risk in 2017.

Ruth is not going anywhere, anytime soon.

jimbobborg · Apr 21, 2015

esqappellate said:
Ruth is not going anywhere, anytime soon.

At least not of her own accord.

MDFF2008 · Apr 21, 2015

squirrels said:
You guys just love to energize Hillary's campaign by throwing her name around in a fear-mongering way. The way people panic about it, it makes it sound even MORE like it's virtually foregone.

This race really isn't about Hillary. NO ONE wants her to be President except the FAR LEFT. After all, she lost to that no-name senator out of Illinois last time she ran. No one is excited about her. She is a default choice right now.

What the race is about is whether the Republicans can muster up a candidate or two that the "common man" will consider to be worth voting for.

But she will still get votes.

danb · Apr 21, 2015

esqappellate said:
Ruth is not going anywhere, anytime soon.

jimbobborg said:
At least not of her own accord.

^^ this. When you are 83, have had two kinds of cancer, life is a gamble.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the more insidious, with a 5 year survival rate of 6% (25% when its caught early and has not spread). She is extremely lucky.

jimbobborg · Apr 21, 2015

danb said:
^^ this. When you are 83, have had two kinds of cancer, life is a gamble.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the more insidious, with a 5 year survival rate of 6% (25% when its caught early and has not spread). She is extremely lucky.

And she's a drinker. I think she might have an "accident" prior to the current president leaving office.

MDFF2008 · Apr 21, 2015

Ginsberg's seat would be nice, but losing Scalia or Kennedy would doom 2A.

Bob A · Apr 21, 2015

Scalia is not going anywhere voluntarily.

He's been able to retire on pension for a decade or more; since then, his work on the Court has been, economically, volunteerism. Add to that the time it has taken from what he could be doing with his life, in retirement. The man is a patriot, pure and simple.

fightinbluhen51 · Apr 21, 2015

Bob A said:
Scalia is not going anywhere voluntarily.

He's been able to retire on pension for a decade or more; since then, his work on the Court has been, economically, volunteerism. Add to that the time it has taken from what he could be doing with his life, in retirement. The man is a patriot, pure and simple.

Or he sees work as "fun" and he doesn't have many other hobbies he'd rather partake in other than being a jurist.

But yeah.

MDFF2008 · Apr 21, 2015

Bob A said:
Scalia is not going anywhere voluntarily.

He's been able to retire on pension for a decade or more; since then, his work on the Court has been, economically, volunteerism. Add to that the time it has taken from what he could be doing with his life, in retirement. The man is a patriot, pure and simple.

I'd rather not have to cross my fingers for 4 more years....

esqappellate · Apr 21, 2015

danb said:
^^ this. When you are 83, have had two kinds of cancer, life is a gamble.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the more insidious, with a 5 year survival rate of 6% (25% when its caught early and has not spread). She is extremely lucky.

All she has to do is last until January 20, 2017.

john_bud · Apr 21, 2015

fightinbluhen51 said:
Meaning that won't sell out to the Chamber of Commerce, the country club blue bloods, the Microsofts, the GEs, the Koch Brothers, the big banks, big farm, big pharma, ect....

Just like the Dems.

We have massive structural issues. Jeb/Chrispycream/Kasich/Rubio ain't the answer. None of them should be seen as center right candidates either.

Bush I gave us appellate court justices that we throw our hands up and pull our hair out.

Bush II gave us more of the same; plus John Roberts (ACA sellout anyone?). Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see just how our "friends" treat us.

Two words - Scott Walker.

fightinbluhen51 · Apr 21, 2015

john_bud said:
Two words - Scott Walker.

Yeah, I would definitely be okay with....

Walker, Rand, Cruz, hell maybe even Fiorina or Bobby Jindal.

As my father would say ABBE (Any Body But the Establishment) with an emphasis on the first B. (No offense to dead guys and no committing murder to make it happen, of course).

fidelity · Apr 21, 2015

eruby said:
I heard on the radio she might well nominate Hussein for SCOTUS.

My head nearly exploded.

It would be a savvy political move. Obama put Hillary in State and could keep an eye on her. Limited any griping about his political decisions that she could make if she were outside the administration. If Obama was placed in the Supreme Court, it essentially muzzles him from political commentary about an HRC administration.

Neutralizing Valerie Jarrett from leaking more damaging information on Hillary may be harder.

gprimr1 said:
Ginsberg's seat would be nice, but losing Scalia or Kennedy would doom 2A.

And for this reason, I would even vote for Jeb Bush if he were the nominee (rather than abstain from voting for President while at the polls voting on other races, etc).

Christie (who I think has almost no chance) would be the harder one for me to consider, as I think that he could nominate 2A-unfriendly jurists that lean R and are authoritarian types that might capture a majority of votes in the Senate.

pilotguy · Apr 21, 2015

Hillary will get elected because we will lose the election not that she will win it. There are more than enough linertarians that have not figured out the lesser of two evils is better. Just like Clorado where they could have defeated the Dem governor, but he won by a margin of the libertarian vote. Had they voted for the Republican they would have repealed the new gun laws by now. But bury your head in the sand voters would rather we have a liberal majority SCOTUS than vote Republican.

Will a Republican come in and drastically change the 2A? Nope. But he would not do the damage that current day Dems would.

Elliotte · Apr 22, 2015

fidelity said:
It would be a savvy political move. Obama put Hillary in State and could keep an eye on her. Limited any griping about his political decisions that she could make if she were outside the administration. If Obama was placed in the Supreme Court, it essentially muzzles him from political commentary about an HRC administration.

Neutralizing Valerie Jarrett from leaking more damaging information on Hillary may be harder.

And for this reason, I would even vote for Jeb Bush if he were the nominee (rather than abstain from voting for President while at the polls voting on other races, etc).

Christie (who I think has almost no chance) would be the harder one for me to consider, as I think that he could nominate 2A-unfriendly jurists that lean R and are authoritarian types that might capture a majority of votes in the Senate.

Actually, it does the opposite. While it won't be the typical form of politician criticism, it would put him in position to strike down any of her laws/actions that he and the conservatives don't like. And it gives him the chance to write legal rulings criticizing her with the fig-leaf covering of it being a constitutional ruling.

A scary thought...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

dont be a dumbass

President, MSI

Oddball caliber fan

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Oddball caliber fan

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics