Kell, this is probably better left to another thread, but if you don't think Democrats in high places have plans for confiscation, you have not reviewed their public statements and policy proposals. Biden has not publicly stated he wants mandatory "buybacks," but the guy he promised to put in charge of gun policy (O'Rourke) very publicly did.
Justice Ginsburg has died; McConnell vows to fill the vacancy
- Thread starter KyJim
- Start date
Nothing new. FDR tried those things in the 1930s, and both backfired spectacularly. The idea of abolishing the filibuster or expanding the court poll really badly, even when people dare voice the idea.
Furthermore, both concepts seem like a good idea if my guys are in power. What happens when the balance shifts in a few years, and the other guy's party decides to expand the court to 17 Justices? What happens when I realize he only needs a bare majority to ramrod legislation through?
There are simply too many moderates to let this happen, and the fact such outrageous threats are being made at all is a signal of desperation. It's like threatening to nuke the site from orbit because a fire hydrant is leaking.
The filibuster rule is just that, a rule. It is not a constitutional provision. It is not even a statute. I don't have a problem with getting rid of it.
I think this is an outstanding argument for filling the court vacancy now:
The interesting part of the argument was when it was made --- February 24, 2016, President Obama's last year in office. And, while I haven't looked up every person who signed onto it, one who did is well-known constitutional scholar, Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky. Now, however, he has changed his mind:
So, don't think the "hypocrisy" is all on one side. It is not. If we take Prof. Chermerinsky's 2016 letter at face value, President Trump has a constitutional duty to fill the seat and the Senate has a constitutional duty to consider it---on the merits because the filibuster rule is not of constitutional dimension.
I think this is an outstanding argument for filling the court vacancy now:
https://web.archive.org/web/2016100.../files/Con Law Scholars on Scotus Vacancy.pdf
The interesting part of the argument was when it was made --- February 24, 2016, President Obama's last year in office. And, while I haven't looked up every person who signed onto it, one who did is well-known constitutional scholar, Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky. Now, however, he has changed his mind:
https://prospect.org/justice/supreme-court-how-did-we-get-here-ginsburg-trump-conservative-nominee/
So, don't think the "hypocrisy" is all on one side. It is not. If we take Prof. Chermerinsky's 2016 letter at face value, President Trump has a constitutional duty to fill the seat and the Senate has a constitutional duty to consider it---on the merits because the filibuster rule is not of constitutional dimension.
The popular media is completely ignoring most of the "precedents" involved.
John Marshal nominated Jan 20, 1801 (yes over 200 years ago), confirmed Jan 27, 1801. AFTER the election of 1800 was held, nominated by John Adams but before the new president, Thomas Jefferson, inaugurated. Plus he was the second nominee after the 1800 election.
So the so-called "Gardner Precedent" has about as much truth as <nothing I want to go on record as actually writing>.
John Marshal nominated Jan 20, 1801 (yes over 200 years ago), confirmed Jan 27, 1801. AFTER the election of 1800 was held, nominated by John Adams but before the new president, Thomas Jefferson, inaugurated. Plus he was the second nominee after the 1800 election.
So the so-called "Gardner Precedent" has about as much truth as <nothing I want to go on record as actually writing>.
The president has a duty to make a nomination, although there doesn't seem to be a time limit. What the Senate does with that nomination is not the president's problem.
Yes, McConnell is a hypocrite. Big deal. I *think* I'd say the same thing if Schumer pulled the same shenanigans, but maybe I'm a hypocrite too.
Yes, McConnell is a hypocrite. Big deal. I *think* I'd say the same thing if Schumer pulled the same shenanigans, but maybe I'm a hypocrite too.
Spats McGee
Administrator
KyJim wins the Understatement of the Day for calling Chemerinsky a "well-known constitutional scholar."
I kept one of his hornbooks on my shelf for the first 15 years of practice. I made the mistake of loaning it out, and that's the only reason I don't have it any more.
When it is not an election year, and when we don't have COVID screwing up the normal order of things, appointing a new Supreme Court Justice has been, political theater and high drama, particularly in recent decades.
The entire idea that a Justice should be someone with the personal integrity to rule on the law, and not involve their own personal views on ANY matter seems to have been lost in the hubub about "where they stand on issues" and "Litmus tests" or them not, perhaps, being pure saints in their personal lives before becoming a nominee.
No one with any desire to be some degree of "activist judge" should ever be considered for such a position. However, we get the choices we get, and lately it seems pure partisan politics counts for more than the rule of law and the duty to the American people.
The sitting President has the duty and responsibility to nominate a replacement when there is a vacancy. NO ONE ELSE DOES.
All cries for the President to wait until after the elections are the ravings of whiners who are not currently in power to make the needed decision, but HOPE to be in that position to nominate THEIR choice AFTER they win the election.
The Pres COULD do that, but is under no obligation, legal or moral to do so.
Personally I don't think he should wait. DO BUSINESS as usual without pandering to the political opposition, but, that's just my opinion, worth what you paid for it.
The entire idea that a Justice should be someone with the personal integrity to rule on the law, and not involve their own personal views on ANY matter seems to have been lost in the hubub about "where they stand on issues" and "Litmus tests" or them not, perhaps, being pure saints in their personal lives before becoming a nominee.
No one with any desire to be some degree of "activist judge" should ever be considered for such a position. However, we get the choices we get, and lately it seems pure partisan politics counts for more than the rule of law and the duty to the American people.
The sitting President has the duty and responsibility to nominate a replacement when there is a vacancy. NO ONE ELSE DOES.
All cries for the President to wait until after the elections are the ravings of whiners who are not currently in power to make the needed decision, but HOPE to be in that position to nominate THEIR choice AFTER they win the election.
The Pres COULD do that, but is under no obligation, legal or moral to do so.
Personally I don't think he should wait. DO BUSINESS as usual without pandering to the political opposition, but, that's just my opinion, worth what you paid for it.
TruthTellers
New member
I wouldn't say Robert's is against it, he was key in the Heller and Macdonald rulings. Squishy... we really don't know. We do know the other eight justices have no idea how he's going to rule on a gun related case, which is why we haven't seen one granted cert (that wasn't later mooted) in a long time.
It was clear that he would have ruled in favor of NY Rifle and Pistol had the city not removed that law in record time once SCOTUS took the case.
With a third Trump nominee tho, SCOTUS would clearly have an overwhelming majority to make extreme pro 2A rulings, whether Roberts is part of the court or not. I say that because for the past 10 years he has been obsessed with his legacy and with five conservatives, three liberals, and himself, the court is appearing to take a hard turn to the right for the next 10+ years.
I get the feeling that Roberts may very well resign in the next few years regardless of who is President in an effort to protect his legacy.
That would be even more likely if Justice Breyer, who at 82 is now the oldest member of the court, were to retire or die. So, the ticking clock applies to more than Thomas and Alito.
TruthTellers
New member
I wouldn't because if you see the last two Trump appointees, plus Alito and Thomas, none of them got 60 votes in the Senate and with how centralized the Democrat party has become, it's impossible for any Republican nominee to ever get a Democratic senator to vote for them in the future.
OTOH, Republicans are more than willing to vote for justices nominated by Democratic presidents, including the vehement anti-gun Ginsberg.
It would be a zero sum game for those center-right and right because it would mean only people like Roberts and Kennedy would get approved.
TruthTellers
New member
It didn't stop Obama. The only thing that did was McConnell and the precedent of a President in his final year in office not having a justice confirmed since the 30s. McConnell, while very Machiavellian when it concerns his own financial well being and political clout, has shown the past 4 years that he is steadfast when SCOTUS is the focus.
He was wise enough to understand how feckless Republicans are and had Garland been given hearings in 2016, I think he thought there would have been a handful of Republicans (McCain, Collins, Graham, Coats, Murkowski) who would have voted to appoint him, enough to get him confirmed.
The President should always, ALWAYS go ahead with nominating a SCOTUS justice. It's up to the Senate to do the rest and when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party (which it typically is for near all Presidents in the last half or their second term) then the President doesn't get his nominee confirmed.
Oh well.
In A Knife Fight, No Pillows Allowed
I think that both sides fight dirty but the Democrats have been taking things to a whole new level of dirty politics with non stop impeachment and tabloid politics based on fabricated accusation and scandal. They never accepted the loss of Hillary to Trump. They cry about the constitution when it serves their purpose and then try to change the rules of the game to take rights or money or power away from average citizens while packing their pockets with cash from business deals their decisions impact like stock investments or with knowledge of major policies coming that impact asset values. If the shoe was on the other foot and the democrats had the senate and the presidency they would not wait to fill the court appointment no matter what they say publicly today. One thing for sure, politicians lie. Democrats would ram through a progressive who aligned with their agenda to transform America into something none of us would recognize. RGB held on to power till the end but the power of life and death was out of her control. Her dying wishes mean nothing in constitutional terms. If she wanted a liberal replacement she could have stepped down when Obama was in office but what happened when Scalia died probably influenced her delay to retire. But the Republicans controlled the senate then and had power to affect the process granted in the constitution and they do now too so like a knife fight there is no hard and fast rules of behavior when talking about the future of our country. If there was we would still need 60 votes in the senate to pass laws and confirm nominations. Winner takes all, no compromises. The threats of open rebellion in the streets are just one more attempt to coerce the country down a path of increasing socialism and mob rule. I pray that sanity and common sense and civility return to our government or the future will be one where each generation has less opportunity than the last. The current trend towards racial division, political division, no accountability for behavior, no respect for laws, unequal treatment by the justice systems depending on who you are and redistribution of wealth by Government fiat at taking us down a very dangerous path. If filling RGB's seat with a solid conservative before the election can change the history of our country for the better.... I say fight dirty. The other side will no matter how nice we are to them today.
I think that both sides fight dirty but the Democrats have been taking things to a whole new level of dirty politics with non stop impeachment and tabloid politics based on fabricated accusation and scandal. They never accepted the loss of Hillary to Trump. They cry about the constitution when it serves their purpose and then try to change the rules of the game to take rights or money or power away from average citizens while packing their pockets with cash from business deals their decisions impact like stock investments or with knowledge of major policies coming that impact asset values. If the shoe was on the other foot and the democrats had the senate and the presidency they would not wait to fill the court appointment no matter what they say publicly today. One thing for sure, politicians lie. Democrats would ram through a progressive who aligned with their agenda to transform America into something none of us would recognize. RGB held on to power till the end but the power of life and death was out of her control. Her dying wishes mean nothing in constitutional terms. If she wanted a liberal replacement she could have stepped down when Obama was in office but what happened when Scalia died probably influenced her delay to retire. But the Republicans controlled the senate then and had power to affect the process granted in the constitution and they do now too so like a knife fight there is no hard and fast rules of behavior when talking about the future of our country. If there was we would still need 60 votes in the senate to pass laws and confirm nominations. Winner takes all, no compromises. The threats of open rebellion in the streets are just one more attempt to coerce the country down a path of increasing socialism and mob rule. I pray that sanity and common sense and civility return to our government or the future will be one where each generation has less opportunity than the last. The current trend towards racial division, political division, no accountability for behavior, no respect for laws, unequal treatment by the justice systems depending on who you are and redistribution of wealth by Government fiat at taking us down a very dangerous path. If filling RGB's seat with a solid conservative before the election can change the history of our country for the better.... I say fight dirty. The other side will no matter how nice we are to them today.
I see Trump nominated the one person I believe his opposition feared this go around. I briefly read up on Amy Barrett during the last scotus vacancy (I recall her being on the short list then). After reading a little more in depth the past couple days I believe she has a lot to offer. She’s obviously 2A friendly. Trumps political opponents have probably waken in cold sweats the past couple of nights. The two attacks I’ve seen is that she is :Gasp: catholic (how intolerant and narrow minded is that!?) and that she will “strike down” Obamacare. You know, that poorly conceived law that has largely already been gutted by the courts over the years until now it’s just a hollow shell of what it was supposed to be.
I say hold confirmation hearings but don’t vote to confirm until after the election. Get the anti gunners and anarchy lovers on record attacking Amy Barrett before the election (I believe she will destroy them anyway), don’t appear rushed, show voters why they need to keep pro 2A politicians in (the continuing need to do their duty), and there’s always the probability of confirming her in the lame duck session if republicans do lose the senate.
I say hold confirmation hearings but don’t vote to confirm until after the election. Get the anti gunners and anarchy lovers on record attacking Amy Barrett before the election (I believe she will destroy them anyway), don’t appear rushed, show voters why they need to keep pro 2A politicians in (the continuing need to do their duty), and there’s always the probability of confirming her in the lame duck session if republicans do lose the senate.
@Metal god: Kanter vs Barr.
For a backgrounder see https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondth...felons-and-the-scope-of-the-second-amendment/
For a backgrounder see https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondth...felons-and-the-scope-of-the-second-amendment/
Last edited:
Thanks kkb
Interesting , I've lived my whole life with that restriction on the books so never gave it any in depth thought really . I still have to process this more . Not to unlike the argument mamajuana and dealing it should not be a felony or a crime at all . I believe once you have engaged in breaking the law , breaking more laws is just a simple step away . I should stop there because I don't have a fully thought through opinion on this yet . I do know , don't think we should convict people for what they might do in the future so not sure how that fits in here yet .
Barret said:
Interesting , I've lived my whole life with that restriction on the books so never gave it any in depth thought really . I still have to process this more . Not to unlike the argument mamajuana and dealing it should not be a felony or a crime at all . I believe once you have engaged in breaking the law , breaking more laws is just a simple step away . I should stop there because I don't have a fully thought through opinion on this yet . I do know , don't think we should convict people for what they might do in the future so not sure how that fits in here yet .
Last edited:
Carne Frio
New member
The Senate could just bring it up for a vote; no hearing required.
Then the country would not have to put up with the circus that
the hearing will provide. Only a majority vote would be needed.
Then the country would not have to put up with the circus that
the hearing will provide. Only a majority vote would be needed.
I have a problem with the language used here. I don't think it is correct.
The Government cannot take away something it does not grant. And the Government of the United States does not grant our unalienable (natural) rights. It recognizes them, but it does not grant them.
Therefore it cannot take them away. What is taken away is the ability to lawfully exercise the right. In essence the right is not removed, it is denied.
In practical terms the effect is the same, but there is, and should be a specific difference in the language used and its actual meaning.
44 , My question would be is there in inalienable right to possess a firearm or is the inalienable right purely to self-defense . Inalienable is often referred to as a God-given right , does that mean God gave us the right to keep and bear arms .
Put another way how is it in alienable right something that requires a man-made object ?
Put another way how is it in alienable right something that requires a man-made object ?