[Rob Banks]

(02-10-2017 05:03 AM)stugatz Wrote:  

What are the odds that this coming fight over the Executive Order ends up in front of a 5-4 court with Gorsuch and gets defeated anyway?

After Roberts joined the left on ObamaCare, I'm not going to rest easy until the court is 6-3 or 7-2.

The Dems will be fighting hard to delay Gorsuch confirmation until after the case regarding Trump's executive order has been heard by the Supreme Court.

[Hypno]

(02-09-2017 04:46 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

What do you guys think about Gorsuch and the 2nd amendment? I don't believe he has had any direct rulings on 2nd amendment cases.

its hard to know for sure but not particularly.

as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

I wouldn't assume Gorsuch is part of that camp. He might not vote to legalize fully automatics, but I also don't think his support of Garland means he wants to eliminate gun rights. Garland was a very qualified jurist who was made a political pawn by Obama and got Borked.

[Rob Banks]

(02-10-2017 05:03 AM)stugatz Wrote:  

What are the odds that this coming fight over the Executive Order ends up in front of a 5-4 court with Gorsuch and gets defeated anyway?

After Roberts joined the left on ObamaCare, I'm not going to rest easy until the court is 6-3 or 7-2.

Senate Dems, led by Cuck Schumer, will try and stall Gorsuch confirmation until after Supreme Court hears Trump's executive order case. The 4 liberal justices will obviously vote to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, and that's all they need. A 4-4 tie affirms the lower court decision.

Trump might be wise not to appeal the recent 9th Circuit decision, and simply wait until after Gorsuch confirmation and issue a new EO. On the other hand, not appealing the 9th Circuit decision might set some kind of precedent againts issuing these types of executive orders.

[Enoch]

I think it is entirely possible we will not have a 9th Supreme Court justice until after the midterms.

[Jean Valjean]

(02-11-2017 10:51 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militiamen to bear arms. Can we then still argue that we have a constitutional right to a well-regulated militia, i.e. an armed and well-trained force composed of all able-bodied men of fighting age, and therefore any able-bodied man between 17 and 45 years of age still has the right to possess a firearm on that basis?

Looking at the rest of the Constitution, it seems the militia was to play an important role in the balance of power between the federal government and the states, with Article I, Section 8 providing that "Congress shall have the Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Without a well-regulated militia, we are left with just the Army and Navy for protection, whose training and officer selection are directed by the President rather than the states, potentially putting in jeopardy the security of a free state, in violation of the Second Amendment.

[Hypno]

(02-14-2017 09:56 AM)Enoch Wrote:  

I think it is entirely possible we will not have a 9th Supreme Court justice until after the midterms.

while that is possible, I view it as unlikely.

Trump packing the court with a 10th and 11th justice are more likely than your scenario, although in my view very unlikely.

[Hypno]

(02-14-2017 10:07 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 10:51 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militiamen to bear arms. Can we then still argue that we have a constitutional right to a well-regulated militia . . .

sure you can argue whatever you want. I would even agree with you. But your argument and reality may be two different things.

the Constitution supports a lot of arguments that don't comport with reality. Said differently, our government operates very differently from the way it was intended and the way the Constitution says it should.

so how the court interprets the 2nd amendment is critical to your actual gun rights.

as it pertains to militias, each state has the national guard which is effectively controlled by the Feds. so it they say there is no individual right, and only a state right, then it effectively means there is no right at all.

[Jean Valjean]

(02-14-2017 10:54 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 10:07 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 10:51 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militiamen to bear arms. Can we then still argue that we have a constitutional right to a well-regulated militia . . .

sure you can argue whatever you want. I would even agree with you. But your argument and reality may be two different things.

the Constitution supports a lot of arguments that don't comport with reality. Said differently, our government operates very differently from the way it was intended and the way the Constitution says it should.

so how the court interprets the 2nd amendment is critical to your actual gun rights.

as it pertains to militias, each state has the national guard which is effectively controlled by the Feds. so it they say there is no individual right, and only a state right, then it effectively means there is no right at all.

Courts are only one venue for arguing constitutional rights, though. One can also run for Congress or U.S. President on a platform calling for respect for Second Amendment rights, and point out that it's the sworn duty of those officeholders to defend those rights. Or one can write letters to the editor calling out politicians who put on the bench judges who are weak on Second Amendment issues.

Once popular opinion has gone in a certain direction, the courts may take notice, because they are always concerned with maintaining legitimacy in the public eye, since even though they serve lifetime terms, the judiciary's independence (and the primacy role in constitutional interpretation) is always at risk of being curtailed by the more powerful political branches if it starts making decisions that provoke too much public outcry. Also, influencing politicians (by challenging them in the primaries, or by launching independent or third party campaigns whose ideas they end up copying) can influence which jurists they choose to put on the bench. If it's an issue that a lot of people are talking about, then politicians will consider potential nominees' views on that issue, because they know the voters could hold them accountable for a bad pick. For example, arguably, Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees was what made the difference in getting mainstream Republicans to vote for him, and his desire to get re-elected helped motivate him to stick to that list and choose Gorsuch.

[Hypno]

Obama appointee and super-liberal, Sotomayer, had paramedics rush to her house due to "low blood sugar." Only 63 but was previously diagnosed as a Type I diabetic, among other things.

Lady makes Hillary look healthy.

Might Trump have yet another appointment? He has already replaced conservative Scalia with conservative Gorsuch.

Lefty Ginsburg is 83, Moderate Kennedy is 80, and Moderate Breyer will be 78 in mid-August.

Sotomayer is a lefty but would be a huge bonus and mean Trump could appoint a majority of the court! That would be the most since FDR.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/1...are-349971

[C-Note]

Kennedy will reportedly retire this summer. Ginsburg is probably going to try to hold-out until 2020 in case Trump isn't re-elected. Who knows, she might make it even though she reportedly quickly falls asleep in all court sessions now. If Trump is re-elected, she'll probably give up and retire. I have no idea on Breyer.

[Hypno]

Ginsburg survived cancer twice and her husband died in 2010. You are right that she will hang on and hope Trump is not reelected. It remains to be seen how long her health will last but she is one tough lady.

Kennedy has a full complement of law clerks for the 2018-2019 term so rumors his forthcoming retirement may be exaggerated. Even though he is a moderate, the Jones senate victory however may cause him to retire before the Republicans lose their majoirty in the senate.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

It's not just the Supreme Court. Trump's most enduring legacy will almost undoubtedly be the fact that - even by 2020 alone - he will likely be in a position to appoint up to one-third of the entire federal judiciary.

[Adonis]

(01-19-2018 09:13 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

It's not just the Supreme Court. Trump's most enduring legacy will almost undoubtedly be the fact that - even by 2020 alone - he will likely be in a position to appoint up to one-third of the entire federal judiciary.

Distracting the dems while he gets shit done behind the headlines.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate...le/2646334

Quote:

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved 17 of President Trump’s judicial nominations Thursday, including two who received “not qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association and one who was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

[Hypno]

Senator predicts Kennedy will retire this summer. Could be bluster, hard to say.

Kennedy is a moderate but his position is pivotal because he often sides with the left.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/37755...his-summer

[Enoch]

(03-09-2018 03:33 PM)Hypno Wrote:  

Senator predicts Kennedy will retire this summer. Could be bluster, hard to say.

Kennedy is a moderate but his position is pivotal because he often sides with the left.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/37755...his-summer

Imagine the REEEE if RBG steps down when Trump is president and is replaced with an old school conservative justice.

She is a titanic figure in #girlpower circles

[Hypno]

That cold, vindictive bitch RBG won't step down voluntarily unless a lefty is in office. They'll have to cart her dead body out of there.

[Ice Man]

Federal Court judges are arguably more important than the Supreme Court judges lately.

For example, in 2008 (Heller) and 2010 (McDonald)there were landmark Supreme Court decisions on the 2nd Amendment.

The Heller and Mcdonald decisions, in very clear language, make it where any challenge to "May Issue" carry permitting (CA, NY, NJ, HI, etc) should result in a very easy victory. These decisions made it clear that carry must be allowed, either open or concealed, that the "good cause" requirements are unconstitutional. Likewise state bans on AR's etc would be void via the wording "cannot ban guns in common use at the time" found in those decisions. Both decisions made it very clear what is constitutional.

What has happened since? Well most of the time the lower courts have simply ignored those Supreme Court decisions (which are controlling law) or very loosely interpreted them, resulting in rulings that are in complete contradiction to the decisions.

Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have recently written that they wanted to hear many recent 2A cases as they were in blatant violation of the previous Supreme Court decisions.

Just from last month:

Clarence Thomas

Quote:

Thomas, in an opinion released on Tuesday, criticized the courts for a "general failure to afford the 2nd Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right." He was writing a dissent after his colleagues declined to take up a challenge to California's 10-day waiting period as it applies to individuals who already own guns.
"The lower courts are resisting this court's decision" in Heller, Thomas complained, "and are failing to protect the 2nd Amendment to the same extent that they protect other constitutional rights."
The 69-year-old justice also turned to his own colleagues on the bench bemoaning the fact that there haven't been the necessary four votes to take up a major 2nd Amendment related case since Heller.
"If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene," Thomas said. "The 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."

If the majority of the Supreme Court simply decline to hear a case then the unconstitutional verdict of the lower court stands and there's nothing that can be done. Thus, on many issues right now, the Federal Courts are the final say, and the most important.

I doesn't matter what the supreme law is if no one enforces it.

[Adonis]

(03-12-2018 06:38 AM)Ice Man Wrote:  

Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have recently written that they wanted to hear many recent 2A cases as they were in blatant violation of the previous Supreme Court decisions.

I'd want another young textualist on the bench. I don't trust that rat fuck Kennedy to not sell us out like he did with Obamacare.

If he retires and/or RBG dies then full speed ahead on everything 2A.

[Enoch]

(03-17-2018 01:32 AM)Adonis Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:38 AM)Ice Man Wrote:  

Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have recently written that they wanted to hear many recent 2A cases as they were in blatant violation of the previous Supreme Court decisions.

I'd want another young textualist on the bench. I don't trust that rat fuck Kennedy to not sell us out like he did with Obamacare.

If he retires and/or RBG dies then full speed ahead on everything 2A.

Didn't Kennedy side with the conservatives while closet case John Roberts tipped the scale?

[Higgs Bosun]

Well, that didn't take long!

Quote:

Neil Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law subjecting immigrants to deportation for crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, handing the Trump administration an early defeat.

President Trump's nominee to the high court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined the liberal majority's 5-4 opinion in deciding that the law passed by Congress failed to define what would qualify as a violent crime.
.....
The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump's administration which, like President Barack Obama's administration before it, had defended the provision at issue before the Supreme Court. And it comes amid an ongoing focus on immigration by Trump.
.......
The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn't decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court's more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

usatoday.co m/story/news/politics/2018/04/17/supreme-court-immigration-law-threatening-deportattosses-out-immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/

Looks like Gorsuch is to the left of the Obama administration on immigration. SAD!

[Slim Shady]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this law would have applied to all immigrants, not just illegal ones correct? In that case I agree with Gorsuch.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

How on Earth can the term "violent crime" be "unconstitutionally vague"? It's any crime that includes violence, you assholes!

[TravelerKai]

(04-17-2018 12:59 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

Correct me if I'm wrong but this law would have applied to all immigrants, not just illegal ones correct? In that case I agree with Gorsuch.

Correct. It appears the law is poorly written because it does not seem to define correctly as to what exactly is a "crime of violence". Should have been more specific in terms of which felonies or misdemeanors in a outlined fashion. Also, the person in the suit, had came to America legally, not illegally, which is another problem with the way ICE used that law and applied it to him.

Congress just needs to make an adjustment to that law.

When the full arguments are released, it will probably have more details as to what particular items are offending.

[estraudi]

(04-17-2018 10:58 AM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

Well, that didn't take long!

Quote:

Neil Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law subjecting immigrants to deportation for crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, handing the Trump administration an early defeat.

President Trump's nominee to the high court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined the liberal majority's 5-4 opinion in deciding that the law passed by Congress failed to define what would qualify as a violent crime.
.....
The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump's administration which, like President Barack Obama's administration before it, had defended the provision at issue before the Supreme Court. And it comes amid an ongoing focus on immigration by Trump.
.......
The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn't decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court's more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

usatoday.co m/story/news/politics/2018/04/17/supreme-court-immigration-law-threatening-deportattosses-out-immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/

Looks like Gorsuch is to the left of the Obama administration on immigration. SAD!

Damn Higgs, it's like every topic I click on in the politics section has you dropping some negative shit about something having to do with Trump, his past or his present appointees in some circular way insinuating what, to an outsider, seems to be a big disdain for the man. I get you may disagree on whatever it is you do, but you always drop a steaming pile of misinformation, then sit back and wait for someone to take the bait and then pounce on that poster for replying.
Almost like you're passive-aggressively just waiting to ambush somebody with whatever seething hatred you have boiling just beneath your surface.
The ruling from SCOTUS had nothing to do with illegals, as the person was a legal immigrant. Only in the past few years has the issue of illegal and legal become so contentious and the laws defining that are only starting to come online.

[Enoch]

(04-17-2018 10:58 AM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

Well, that didn't take long!

Quote:

Neil Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law subjecting immigrants to deportation for crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, handing the Trump administration an early defeat.

President Trump's nominee to the high court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined the liberal majority's 5-4 opinion in deciding that the law passed by Congress failed to define what would qualify as a violent crime.
.....
The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump's administration which, like President Barack Obama's administration before it, had defended the provision at issue before the Supreme Court. And it comes amid an ongoing focus on immigration by Trump.
.......
The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn't decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court's more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

usatoday.co m/story/news/politics/2018/04/17/supreme-court-immigration-law-threatening-deportattosses-out-immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/

Looks like Gorsuch is to the left of the Obama administration on immigration. SAD!

Is Gorsuch a "muh principles" cuck like Jeff Sessions? Does he realize we are in a war for the future of the country?