|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 21, 2016, 12:28 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Every President has a short list of SCOTUS nominees, for just such an eventually as the sudden death of Scalia or any other Justice. Much of the speculation as to whom might be chosen is empty rhetoric, the choice has already been made months before.
|
April 6, 2016, 12:03 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...iberal/477018/
Now folks, we don't do liberal vs. conservative so the title of the article is unfortunate. We also don't want to discuss the other issues in the piece. The point for us is that the author states: Quote:
Would it have been better to let sleeping dogs like, so to speak? The chance that a 5/4 negates the current position would not be good. Folks say that the court doesn't overturn precedent - well, it has happened. Other social causes are clambering to get one of theirs on the Court to overturn decisions they don't like. Interesting times but please avoid the usual liberal/conservative mantras or specific candidates and stick to the SCOTUS risks.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
April 6, 2016, 03:14 PM | #53 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
Lower courts jump on that phrase as their "proof" that all existing anti-gun laws are constitutional. That's not what it says. Basically, what he said was, in effect, "We're not talking about those laws in this case so, for the moment, we'll presume that they're legal until they each have their own day in court." And the problem, as we are seeing, is that all those "presumptively" lawful restrictions aren't getting their day in court, because the courts (SUPRISE!) are "presuming" that they are lawful and ignoring all arguments to the contrary. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; April 7, 2016 at 05:22 AM. Reason: typos |
|
April 6, 2016, 09:35 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Good debate... Hate I missed most of it. I will say that I do believe the senate should have a confirmation hearing. The day McConnell said they were gonna waif and let the next president pick, I thought that was a mistake. Republicans absolutely suck at playing politics (not trying to be partisan or go down that road). They have constitutional power to confirm or deny a SCOTUS appointee... They should use it.
I do think there is wisdom in delaying confirmation as long as possible. Try to aim for the June or July time frame. Hillary could be indicted by that point, for all we know. I don't know who would eventually be president if that happened. I have to say I would fear most of the current candidates should they win... Including their possible SCOTUS picks. Things could look up a few months from now though. Its likely that either Hillary (unless she has legal issues) or Trump will be president. In either case, we would probably be happier with Garland than their picks. |
April 7, 2016, 08:29 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
One sees it written that Garland is a moderate, but what does that mean? If it means that he sides with the state in viewing the rights of criminal defendants narrowly, that doesn't really serve to moderate or counterbalance his liberal streak. Instead it shows a mind less concerned with preserving the limited government described in the COTUS; that's the very opposite of Scalia's view, not "moderate". We also see praise of Garland's mind and the well built reasoning of his decisions. This describes a more formidable adversary, not a moderate problem. A liberal (in the judicial context, one who disregards constitutional safeguards in favor of his own vision of the good of state power) who writes transparent nonsense should be preferable to one who dresses his disregard in constitutional ornaments. Transparent nonsense may have a shorter life after a justice leaves than better reasoned opinions.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 7, 2016 at 11:41 AM. |
|
April 7, 2016, 09:28 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Again, the Republicans may well rue the day they didn't go for what they have.
|
April 7, 2016, 10:14 AM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
The Supreme Court is a political wing of the White House, has been for decades. The Senate should hold a hearing, vote Garland down, and tell the White House to send a nominee who believes in the rights and liberties of the people. Throw it right back in their faces. Come election time, the debate would be about liberty, not about which party isn't performing it's advise and consent duty.
|
April 7, 2016, 11:41 AM | #58 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Senate has given its advice and has no duty to consent.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
April 7, 2016, 01:26 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|