Justice Scalia Dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
So regarding the multiple assault weapons ban cases that gun rights groups are trying to send to the Supreme Court, what happens now? Can they just take them back or will the cases now either be heard by the Court (and thus likely upheld) or the Court simply vote not to hear them?

For example, Connecticut gun rights people just sent a challenge to the Court on Connecticut's AWB and the Maryland Attorney General wants the SCOTUS to strike down the striking down of the Maryland AWB that just happened (well the saying that Strict Scrutiny is what is needed), and here in New York, the challengers of the SAFE Act are trying to take it to the SCOTUS.

Is this a situation where the gun rights groups have gunned the engine, only to have the bridge collapse up ahead and don't have the ability to stop the vehicle before it goes over the cliff?
 
Does the full process continue after he leaves office ?? or can the new Pres stop the process and name his or her own ?
Click to expand...

The President has the power to withdraw nominations not yet confirmed by the Senate.

So regarding the multiple assault weapons ban cases that gun rights groups are trying to send to the Supreme Court, what happens now? Can they just take them back or will the cases now either be heard by the Court (and thus likely upheld) or the Court simply vote not to hear them?
Click to expand...

The cases will still go forward. However, as of yet, the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear any gun cases. Should cases be heard while there are 8 Justices and a 4-4 tie results, then the opinion of the lower court will be affirmed but the case will have no precedential value for the Supreme Court or lower courts.

From a strategic aspect then, if you think the President will appoint a Justice who would vote against your cases, a vacancy is better than a compromise appointment. The other side of that is historically, many of the Justices who ended up being more to the left (Stevens, Souter) were appointed by Republican Presidents but with a Democratic Senate. Some might even argue Kennedy as a third example of that phenomenon. Ironically, the last President to be confirmed by the opposition party in the Senate was Clarence Thomas - who has been more of an originalist than Scalia in my view.

Frankly, I don't think Obama supporters are going to ultimately be very happy with any candidate this Senate is likely to approve. Even Thomas never would have been confirmed had he been a lame duck appointee.
 
Last edited:
The President has the power to withdraw nominations not yet confirmed by the Senate.
Click to expand...

I kinda figured that but has any pres withdrawn a previous pres nomination . That to me would seem like a no no . The political backlash would likely be extreme .
 
I don't think that scenario has ever happened. Eisenhower made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court a month before the election, then won reelection and had the appointment confirmed by the Senate. That's the closest I'm aware of to your scenario.
 
Found out before going to bed last night. Scalia was a giant in the legal world, I'm sorry to hear of his passing.

I realize a lot of folks are worried about how the SCOTUS will now swing in regards to the topic of gun control but that's all just speculation. What does NOT need to happen is the senate entrenching itself to the point where their jobs are not being done (again).

What it sounds like already is that McConnell is already stating that they will refuse to do their jobs.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," the Kentucky Republican said. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
Click to expand...
Translated this means, we refuse to do our jobs on the hopes that a republican nominee wins the presidential vote. Unacceptable. Do your jobs, senators. It's things like this that are the reason that the GOP is in such a sorry state (train wreck really) right now. These guys holding up the process should have been out when they caused (caused, not allowed) the government shutdown a few years ago.

I have faith that the SCOTUS will continue to uphold our rights to bear arms.
 
If you trust that SOCTUS, loaded by Obama will protect the Second Amendment, you just have not been paying attention. I believe that no lame duck POTUS has appointed a supreme court justice in 80 years. The Senate's job is to advise and consent. They are advising. They are not required to consent to everything POTUS proposes.
 
Last edited:
This administration will absolutely not fail to attempt to pack the court with a leftist majority. They have been planning for it, wanting it, and will not hold back for any reason.

It's not just gun control, although that will certainly be a big part, there are quite a few issues where the SCOTUS can do serious harm to the public if they are allowed to run rampant.

Justice Scalia said it numerous times, that an activist court meant the role of the people in determining the laws they would be governed by would be replaced with a simple majority of an unelected panel of appointees, accountable to absolutely no one, using not even law, but 'reasoned judgement' to govern.
 
Translated this means, we refuse to do our jobs on the hopes that a republican nominee wins the presidential vote. Unacceptable. Do your jobs, senators. It's things like this that are the reason that the GOP is in such a sorry state (train wreck really) right now. These guys holding up the process should have been out when they caused (caused, not allowed) the government shutdown a few years ago.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard (though I am no expert), multiple conservative legal scholars have said that the Senate can hold up the nomination.

I have faith that the SCOTUS will continue to uphold our rights to bear arms.
Click to expand...

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

What makes you think that? The Court was only 5-4 in ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms (well, technically 9-0 on the individual right aspect, but the dissent said that it only applies to an individual right to possess arms if a member of a state militia, which IMO is the same thing as saying it's a collective right).

It was also only 5-4 in the Chicago v McDonald decision. And under the various "assault weapons bans" that different states have passed, where they define "assault weapon" arbitrarily, however they want, which means that they get to ban whatever guns they please so long as they label them as "assault weapons," and the fact that multiple lower courts have upheld the bans, what makes you think that the left-leaning justices on the Supreme Court would ever uphold gun rights?
 
SailingOnBy said:
Translated this means, we refuse to do our jobs on the hopes that a republican nominee wins the presidential vote.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think making sure the next SCOTUS nominee is committed to preserving the fundamental rights described expressly in the Bill of Rights is perhaps one of THE most important jobs the Senate has to do - and I hope they are extremely strict in their application of that test regardless of which President nominates the candidate. I will certainly be encouraging them to be very cognizant of the Second Amendment in confirming new Justices.

We cannot afford another Sotomayor appointed as Justice who says "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And then, in her first court decision on the matter rules that no such right exists.

I have faith that the SCOTUS will continue to uphold our rights to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Would you ascribe that to being ill-informed about recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, remarkable optimism, or a general desire to see more Democrats in power regardless of Second Amendment issues?
 
I've said this before, and I'll continue to say it. This election, in November, is for all the marbles.

If you want to keep your guns, vote accordingly. If you want to see city-by-city sets of laws, bans, taxes, whatever, then vote for the party endorsing such things. If you want to see Australian-style confiscation, then vote for the party endorsing it. If you want to see the Supreme Court become an unelected, unaccountable legislature, able to force national change based upon a legal challenge brought by special interests, then vote for the party endorsing the concept. If you want to see the Constitution 'interpreted' to mean whatever the administration wants it to mean, then vote for the party endorsing such actions.

All it takes is a single vote, 5-4, and it's over.
 
Gary, Bork wouldn't be a very active jurist.:rolleyes:

I'm surprised that people on both sides are saying things like "now it's real" concerning the stakes of the election.
First of all because every president is likely to put one or more judges on the court, so every election has the same stakes.
Secondly because Scalia will be replaced by Obama not by whoever wins election.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
We cannot afford another Sotomayor appointed as Justice who says "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And then, in her first court decision on the matter rules that no such right exists.
Click to expand...
That would be the same Justice Sotomayor who famously said:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Which, liberally translated, seems to mean something like "I don't really care what the Constitution meant to a bunch of dead Anglo guys who wrote it, I only care about how I can twist it to help other Latinos."

The closing paragraph of an article I read about Justice Scalia immediately after the news broke included this nugget:

“We don’t sit here to make the law, to decide who ought to win,” Justice Scalia said. “We decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. And very often, if you’re a good judge, you don’t really like the result you’re reaching.”
Click to expand...
We need more good judges and good justices who are willing to follow the law even if/when it leads them somewhere they don't really like.
 
Last edited:
It's worse than is being currently posted here. The President can make an appointment of whomever he wants if the Senate is in recess. THE SENATE WENT INTO RECESS ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH, AND DOESN'T RECONVENE UNTIL THE 22ND. The only way they can reconvene earlier, is with permission of the Minority Leader, who happens to be Harry Reid.

BOHICA!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top