Potential impact of Supreme Court shift

[wiiawiwb]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the potential downside to a Hillary victory were she to nominate 2 or 3 liberal SC justices which would make a it a rubber stamp for the Left. What could a rubber stamp SC do?

For example, let's assume in 2017 a blue state like CA, NY, MD or MA passes a law banning all semi-automatics firearms. It would be challenged in court until it finally reached the SC. With a clear majority, the SC could rubber stamp it and uphold the lower court's ruling.

How extreme could things get if she is elected and appoints liberal SC justices?

Finally, could Hillary make an Executive Order banning semi-automatic weapons? Lawsuits would ensue, of course, but the court of last resort is the Supreme Court. If there is a liberal lock on it, what would stop her from issuing an EO and rounding up semis?

 

[jrmiddleton425]

It would be challenged in court until it finally reached the SC. With a clear majority, the SC could rubber stamp it and uphold the lower court's ruling.

Lower court rulings have been allowed to stand in at least two cases already. With Justice Scalia on the bench, the vote was 7-2 to deny certiorari in the Highland Park, Illinois case. Connecticut's case was also denied recently.

Effectively, a legal jurisdiction (city, state, etc.) can do what they want as long as compliance options exist.

How extreme could things get if she is elected and appoints liberal SC justices?

I don't know...I suppose if they wanted to, BATFE could revoke all FFLs, and then declare any post-1898 cartridge firearm contraband. SCOTUS doesn't seem to want to take gun cases lately.

Finally, could Hillary make an Executive Order banning semi-automatic weapons? If there is a liberal lock on it, what would stop her from issuing an EO and rounding up semis?

Nothing, really...if the President issues an order, Congress can only overturn it with a veto-proof majority.

 

[wiiawiwb]

Remember, SCOTUS had a 5-4 majority when it came to guns. With Scalia gone, that dynamic has changed. The next President will be replacing two and maybe three justices. That could mean a majority in such numbers as to be a rubber stamp for the Left. A freshly-appointed SCOTUS just might have a healthy appetite for a Second Amendment case, or two.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is nothing Congress can do negate a President's Executive Order. A lawsuit can ensure, as has been done several times against BO, but ultimately with a Left-locked SCOTUS, it could simply rule in favor of the EO.

Am I missing something?

 

[mboylan]

You have absolutely no understanding of Executive Orders at all.

An EO is not a blank check. EOs are enforcement policies carrying the weight of law supported by existing law and executive powers.

Obama was smart enough to know that he could not get an assault weapons ban to stand through Executive Order and Hillary is smart enough to know that as well.

...and Executive Actions are a completely different thing altogether. EAs are general policy statements that direct agency directors to write policy within existing law in order to achieve the objective.

 

[Frank Ettin]

(1) Folks need to get educated about what Executive Orders are and are not. We've had a number of discussions on that subject, and we're not going down that rabbit hole now.

(2) And we don't get into wild speculation either.